alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) No. 72418-5-1 f-3 kJ")c~ Respondent,

v. DIVISION ONE CXI 1:>, ~v
SHAWN L. SCHULZE, UNPUBLISHED OPINION S! 'X-'--' Appellant. i FILED: JUN 1 5 2015 CO ::•—: Per Curiam

— Shawn Schulze appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty 

### pleas to 21 counts of firstdegree identity theft, two counts ofattempted firstdegree 

### identity theft, and two counts ofsecond degree identity theft. He contends, and the State concedes, that his sentence on the attempted first degree identity theft convictions 

### exceeds the statutory maximum sentence and must be reduced to 60 months without 

### community custody. RCW 9A.28.020(3)(c); RCW9.94A.411(2); In re Postsentence Review of Leach, 161 Wn.2d 180, 163 P.3d 782 (2007). Schulze also contends, and 

### the State again concedes, that his totalsentence on the Second Degree Identity Theft counts exceeds the statutory maximum and must be remanded forimposition of a sentence within the statutory maximum and consistentwith State v. Boyd, 174Wn.2d 

### 470, 275 P.3d 321 (2012. We acceptthe concessions of error and remand for further proceedings consistentwith this opinion. FOR THE COURT: 

# £pxJ.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Cynthia A. Tetor, Claimant. John E. Sweeney, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 430]

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 27, 1994, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant worked as a secretary at a nursing home. She resigned from her job because she could not handle the stress of the patients dying. Her claim for unemployment insurance benefits was denied on the basis that she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. Although claimant asserts that she had to resign due to medical problems, she admitted *794that she did not seek medical attention until after she left her job and also that she declined a position in the business office. In view of this testimony, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision.

White, J. P., Casey, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
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

STEVEN W. LENTZ,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2617 LKK DAD P

vs.

DR. ATHAUASSIOUS, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By order filed August 22, 2005, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and thirty

days leave to file an amended complaint was granted. Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to do

so would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. The thirty day period has

now expired, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the

court’s order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed

without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Case 2:04-cv-02617-LKK -DAD Document 6 Filed 10/04/05 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

2

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: October 3, 2005.

DAD:lg

lent2617.fta

Case 2:04-cv-02617-LKK -DAD Document 6 Filed 10/04/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 64151.

protests 321946-K, etc. (New York).

#### Associated Dry Goods Corp. (Lord & Taylor Div.) et al. *v.*United States,

*459Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures the same in all material respects as those the subject of Wm. *S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C.C.P.A. 15, C.A.D. 458), the merchandise was held dutiable as follows: (1) The items marked with the setter “A” at 20 percent under paragraph 1547(a) ; and (2) the items marked with the letter “B” at 10 percent under said paragraph, as modified by the An-necy Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 52373), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T.D. 52476).
No. 64149.

protest 59/14458 (New York).

#### Isaac B. Cohen & Sons Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the principles herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc. (34*C.C.P.A. 112, C.A.D. 351), and that one *carton, reported*by the inspector as manifested, not found, was not in fact received by the importer. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited, it was held that duty is not assessable upon the one carton of merchandise, which was reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protest was sustained to this extent.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-14-00028-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF B.M.W., A MINOR CHILD

On Appeal from the 6th District Court

Lamar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 81876

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

James H. Williams, III, acting pro se, has filed an appeal from a judgment involving a 

child support obligation. The clerk’s record was filed on April 25, 2014. Williams did not 

request a reporter’s record. In response to questions posed by this Court, Williams stated in a 

conversation with our clerk’s office on June 23, 2014, that he desired to dismiss his appeal. He 

stated that he would send a letter or fax confirming this. No letter or fax was received. 

We contacted Williams by letter on July 3, informing him that if he wished to pursue his 

appeal, he needed to send this Court a letter showing that he was actively working to advance his 

case. His letter was due to be received by this Court by July 14, 2014. We warned him at that 

time that if we received no response by that date, his appeal would be dismissed pursuant to Rule 

42.3(c) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P 42.3(c). As of the date of 

this opinion, Williams has not contacted this Court.

We dismiss the appeal.

Bailey C. Moseley

Justice

Date Submitted: July 23, 2014

Date Decided: July 24, 2014
Exhibit
31.1
 
 CERTIFICATIONS
   I, Kevin
J. Kelly, certify that:
  1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of  Patient Portal
Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "registrant'');
  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 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:
  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)
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
  c)
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 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 13, 2008
  By:
              /s/  Kevin
      J. KellyKEVIN
      J. KELLYChief
      Executive Officer
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

DEWAYNE McGEE RICHARDSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1603 GEB DAD P

vs.

O. DICKINSON, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an amended complaint pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 27, 2004, plaintiff filed his amended complaint but failed to

sign it. Local Rule 7-131(b) requires that all pleadings be signed by the party appearing in

propria persona. Therefore, the court will dismiss the amended complaint and order plaintiff to

file a second amended complaint. 

Plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to

make plaintiff's second amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an

amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is

because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v.

Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files his second amended complaint, the

prior pleadings no longer serves any function in the case. 

Case 2:04-cv-01603-GEB-DAD Document 10 Filed 05/13/05 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

2

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is dismissed.

2. Within twenty days from the service of this order, plaintiff shall file a second

amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the

docket number assigned this case and must be labeled “Second Amended Complaint”; plaintiff

must file an original and two copies of the second amended complaint; failure to file a second

amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action

be dismissed. 

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to provide plaintiff with a copy of the court’s

form complaint for a § 1983 action.

DATED: May 13, 2005.

DAD:4

rich1603.amd

Case 2:04-cv-01603-GEB-DAD Document 10 Filed 05/13/05 Page 2 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EARNEST CASSELL WOODS, II,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2245 LKK KJM P

vs.

TOM L. CAREY, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no

absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d

453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at

any stage of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing

§ 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be

served by the appointment of counsel at the present time. 

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02245-LKK -KJM Document 17 Filed 04/26/06 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s March 31, 2006 motion 

for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage

of the proceedings.

DATED: April 25, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

mp; wood2245.110

Case 2:04-cv-02245-LKK -KJM Document 17 Filed 04/26/06 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***





I,
      Samuel
      F. Occhipinti, Chief Financial Officer of Solomon Technologies, Inc. (the
“Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:





•  the
      Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
      September 30, 2008
      as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





•  the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company for the periods
      presented therein.








/s/
      Samuel F. Occhipinti


Samuel
      F.
      Occhipinti


Chief
      Financial Officer


(principal
      financial and accounting officer)


November
      19, 2008




*
        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 by Solomon Technologies, Inc.
        and
        will be retained by Solomon Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
        and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Before the Third Division,

October 20, 1948

No. 52635.

protests 9569-K, etc. (New York).

#### Neuman & Schwiers Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Exhibit 32.1

                Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

                             As Adopted Pursuant To

                  Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Peter W. DeVecchis, President of Solomon Technologies, Inc. (the "Company"),
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:

      o     the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
            March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
            Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") fully complies with the
            requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
            Act of 1934; and

      o     the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
            of the Company for the periods presented therein.


                                       /s/ Peter W. DeVecchis, Jr.
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Peter W. DeVecchis, Jr.
                                       President
                                       (principal executive officer)
                                       May 16, 2005
No. 51727.

#### Protest 114194-K of Hammer Co. (Cleveland).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Somerset*(33 C. C. P. A. 138, C. A. D. 328), and that a quantity of liquor amounting to 10 percent or more of the total contents of barrels numbered 1, 4, 6, 11, 14, 18, 24, and 25, was lost in transit from the port of exportation to the port •of destination due to breakage, leakage, or damage. In accordance therewith it was held that an allowance should have been made for the loss appearing upon the gauger’s return as verified by the affidavit of the importer. The protest was sustained to this extent.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6177

DAVID MEYERS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

J. D. BENTLEY; SGT. J. B. HALL; J. FANNIN; M. L. COUNTS; WALTER 

SWINEY; C. R. STANLEY; F. STANLEY; A. CLEVINGER; OFFICER 

STANLEY; JR. OFFICER WELLS; SGT. WILLIAMS; C. STALLARD; 

GERALDINE BAKER BAKER; OFFICER GWEN; MAJOR TATE; CAPTAIN 

D. STILL; CAPTAIN BLEVINS; OFFICER MCCOWAN; J. B. MESSER; S. 

ESCOFFERY; T. DORTON; FL. OFFICER LEWIS; SGT. MEADE; MARCUS 

ELAM; A. DAVID ROBINSON; PAUL HAYMES; HENRY PONTON; S. 

BRYAN; CURTIS PARR; P. SYKES; J. GIBSON; J. ARTRIP; DR. EDWARD 

BONKYE; KAREN STAPLETON; J. BLEDSOE; DR. FOX; C. DICKENSON; 

OFFICER CATERON; OFFICER BENTLEY,

Defendants - Appellees.

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

Roanoke. James P. Jones, District Judge. (7:18-cv-00051-JPJ-PMS)

Submitted: June 13, 2019 Decided: June 25, 2019

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

David Meyers, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

David Meyers, a Virginia inmate, has filed a notice of appeal. While we grant 

Meyers’ motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of fees under the Prison 

Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

Because is it uncontested that Meyers has had three civil actions or appeals 

dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, he must show that he is 

in imminent danger of serious physical injury in order to proceed in a civil action or 

appeal without prepayment of the filing fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (2012). We have 

considered Meyers’ allegations and conclude that he has sufficiently shown that he is in 

imminent danger of serious physical injury and he may proceed under the PLRA without 

prepayment of fees.

“The effect of a notice of appeal is determined at the time it is filed.” Trinidad 

Corp. v. Maru, 781 F.2d 1360, 1362 (9th Cir. 1986). A proper notice of appeal is filed 

“after the entry of the judgment or order appealed from.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). 

Here, Meyers seeks to appeal an order denying his motion to seal. When Meyers filed 

the notice of appeal, there was no order denying a motion to seal, nor was there a pending 

motion to seal. There being no appealable order when the appeal was filed, we dismiss 

the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed without prepayment of fees under the 

PLRA, but dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We also deny Meyers’ motion for 

injunctive relief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions 
4

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 11



STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION

OF PER
SHARE EARNINGS



|                                          |  |  |  |  |  |           |  |  |  |       
|----------------------------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | --------- |  |  |  | ------
|                                          |  |  |  |  |  |           |  |  |  | SHARES
|Basic Shares outstanding at June 30, 2004 |  |  |  |  |  | 1,762,447
|                                          |  |  |  |  |  |           |  |  |  |       



|                                              |  |                     |  |   |  |   |      |             |  |  |  | 
|--------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------- |  | - |  | - | ---- | ----------- |  |  |  | 
|Net (loss) after tax Basic Shares outstanding |  | $(658,248)1,762,447 |  | = |  | $ | (.37 | ) per share |  |  |  | 



|                                            |  |  |  |  |  |           |  |  |  | 
|------------------------------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | --------- |  |  |  | 
|                                            |  |  | 
|Diluted Shares outstanding at June 30, 2004 |  |  |  |  |  | 1,831,043
|                                            |  |  |  |  |  |           |  |  |  | 



|                                                |  |                     |  |   |  |   |      |             |  |  |  | 
|----------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------- |  | - |  | - | ---- | ----------- |  |  |  | 
|Net (loss) after tax Diluted Shares outstanding |  | $(658,248)1,831,043 |  | = |  | $ | (.37 | ) per share |  |  |  | 



Note: Basic earnings per share is
computed as earnings divided by weighted average basic shares outstanding. When a loss occurs, Diluted (loss) per share and Basic (loss) per share are the same.
**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 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), I, Michael J. Ricketts, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Cano Petroleum, Inc. (the “Company”), certify that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 (the “Form 10-Q”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date:      May 13,   2011 | /s/   Michael J. Ricketts                           |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                                                         |                                                |
|                                                         | Michael   J. Ricketts                               |
|                                                         | Senior   Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----