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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6349

NOREL STERLING WARD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN JEFF KISER, Red Onion State Prison; SGT. MASSINGILL; MR. 

BLEDSOE; SGT. FLEMING; NURSE WITT,

Defendants - Appellees.

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

Roanoke. Thomas T. Cullen, District Judge. (7:20-cv-00036-TTC-PMS)

Submitted: February 8, 2024 Decided: February 14, 2024

Before KING, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Norel Sterling Ward, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6349 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/14/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Norel Sterling Ward appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation 

of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to 

exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. We have reviewed the record and find 

no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the pending motions and affirm the district 

court’s order, see Ward v. Kiser, No. 7:20-cv-00036-TTC-PMS (W.D. Va. Mar. 13, 2023), 

but we modify the dismissal to be without prejudice, see Ali v. Hogan, 26 F.4th 587, 600 

(4th Cir. 2022); Moss v. Harwood, 19 F.4th 614, 623 n.3 (4th Cir. 2021). 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 AS MODIFIED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6349 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/14/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
Case No. 8,472.

#### LOMBARD v. STILLWELL.

Patents foe Inventions — Infringement — Injunction — Defendant’s Affidavits.

[Cited in 1 Brightly’s Dig. 457, to the point, that on a motion for an injunction in a patent case, it is not enough for the defendant to make oath that he manufactures under a patent granted to himself; he mint support his right, by the affidavits of third persons.J

[Decided by KANE, District Judge. Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1336

MENGYANG LI,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SHEPHERD UNIVERSITY,

 Defendant - Appellee.

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

Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:19-cv-00216-GMG-RWT)

Submitted: July 25, 2023 Decided: July 28, 2023

Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mengyang Li, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1336 Doc: 15 Filed: 07/28/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Mengyang Li seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion to 

postpone the submission deadline of a joint proposed schedule in his civil action and 

entering an amended schedule. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 

28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The 

orders Li seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral 

orders. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1336 Doc: 15 Filed: 07/28/2023 Pg: 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

 The docket reflects that on April 14, 2005, the findings and recommendations mailed to 1

plaintiff were returned as “undeliverable (unable to forward),” and on April 15, 2005, defendant filed

a notice of recent communication which attaches a letter from plaintiff to defense counsel, stating

that she is in the Philippines and requesting that counsel “re-set” all hearings until July 1, 2005. The

court’s January 24 and February 25, 2005 orders were also returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff has

failed to keep the court apprised of her change of address, in violation of E. D. Local Rule 83-183(b).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NENA P. FOUST,

Plaintiff, No. CIV-S-04-2455 DFL GGH PS

vs.

UNITED AIRLINES,

Defendant. ORDER

__________________________________/

On April 11, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. No objections were filed.1

 Accordingly, the court presumes any findings of fact are correct. See Orland v.

United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1999). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.

1983).

Case 2:04-cv-02455-DFL-GGH Document 12 Filed 06/14/05 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

The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing,

concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the Proposed Findings and Recommendations in full.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed April 11, 2005, are

ADOPTED; and

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110 (E.D. Cal.

1997); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

DATED: 6/10/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02455-DFL-GGH Document 12 Filed 06/14/05 Page 2 of 2
# C_2007250EN.01003901.xml

| 25.10.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/39

---

Corrigendum to Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1628/2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to national regional investment aid

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 193 of 21 August 2007
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 193 of 21 August 2007

(2007/C 250/11)

The publication of information communicated regarding State aid in the Official Journal mentioned below (p. 5, Aid XR 118/07), is cancelled.

---
STATE OF LOUISIANA

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

JOHN COUSIN

NO. 2023 KW 1280

MARCH 13, 2024

In Re: John Cousin, applying for supervisory writs, 22nd

Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Tammany, No. 

265831. 

BEFORE: GUIDRY, C. J., CHUTZ AND LANIER, JJ. 

WRIT DENIED ON THE SHOWING MADE. Relator failed to include

a

copy of the bill of information or indictment, the motion

filed in the district court, the district court' s

ruling on the

motion, the state' s response if any, all pertinent minute

entries and/ or transcripts, and any other portions of the

district court record that might support the claims raised in

the writ application. Supplementation of this writ application

and/ or an application for rehearing will not be considered. See

Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal, Rules 2- 18. 7 & 4- 9. 

Any future filing on this issue should include the entire

contents of this application, the missing items noted above, and

a copy of this ruling. 

JMG

WRC

WIL

OURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

PUTY CLERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Gracie Darlene Grant, Appellant

No. 06-18-00187-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 8th District Court of 

Hopkins County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

1323432). Opinion delivered by Chief 

Justice Morriss, Justice Burgess and Justice 

Stevens participating.

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 note that the appellant, Gracie Darlene Grant, has adequately indicated her inability to 

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED MAY 6, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

CARLOS A. HAYNES,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 300 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 11th day of September, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED.
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

 Defendant’s previous request to modify the first scheduling order filed in this action 1

was granted in the revised scheduling order filed July 28, 2005.

 Defendant represents that plaintiff was convicted in the state criminal proceedings in 2

October 2005 and that sentencing is set for December 16, 2005.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES THOMAS RODGERS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2661 FCD JFM P

vs.

OFFICER HAMPTON,

Defendant. REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a county jail inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendant has filed a request to vacate the dates set in this court’s

July 28, 2005 revised scheduling order due to the pendency of state criminal proceedings against

petitioner, and he requests a stay of this action until thirty days after plaintiff’s transfer to the 1

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Good cause appearing, defendant’s 2

request will be granted in part. This action will be stayed until further order of court. Not later

than ten days after sentence is imposed on plaintiff in state court, counsel for defendant shall

Case 2:04-cv-02661-FCD-JFM Document 28 Filed 12/21/05 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

notify the court of the sentence imposed. Thereafter, the court will make further orders for the

prosecution of this action.

On November 29, 2005, plaintiff filed a letter addressed to the Clerk of the Court. 

The letter contains several questions. Plaintiff is informed that the court cannot give legal

advice. Good cause appearing, the Clerk of the Court will be directed to send plaintiff a form

civil rights complaint. Should plaintiff seek to file an amended complaint in this action, he must

file a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 and said motion must be accompanied by a proposed

amended complaint. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s November 28, 2005 request for modification of the revised

scheduling order is granted;

2. All dates set in the July 28, 2005 revised scheduling order are vacated;

3. This action is stayed until further order of court;

4. Not later than ten days after sentence is imposed on plaintiff is state court,

counsel for defendants shall notify the court in writing of the sentence imposed;

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a form civil rights complaint

and accompanying instructions; and

6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to administratively close this action until

further order of court.

DATED: December 21, 2005.

12

rodg2661.stay

Case 2:04-cv-02661-FCD-JFM Document 28 Filed 12/21/05 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.                  

###### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

          - [Notice (07-024)] 

# AGENCY:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 

# ACTION:

Notice of Amendment and Renewal of the Charter for the U.S. Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Advisory Board.

# SUMMARY:

The title of the current U.S. Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Timing Advisory Board Charter is being amended to be in compliance with Public Law 109-364, Section 911(a)(3), signed into law by the President on October 17, 2006. The only change is to amend “U.S.” to “National” in the title. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. P. Diane Rausch, Advisory Committee Management Officer, Office of External Relations, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546, 202/358-4510. 

Dated: March 9, 2007. 

P. Diane Rausch, 

Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

[FR Doc. E7-4801 Filed 3-15-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
# C_2007287EN.01003901.xml

| 29.11.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/39

---

STATE AID — UNITED KINGDOM

STATE AID — UNITED KINGDOM

State aid C 42/04 (ex N 350/04) — Business Premises Renovation Allowances

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 287/10)

The Commission has decided to close the formal investigation procedure under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty, initiated on 1 December 2004 (1) in respect of the measure referred to above, recording that the United Kingdom has withdrawn its notification on 23 April 2007.

1

---

(1)  OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 38.

1

---
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

DONALD ROY MILLER, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2446 DFL KJM P

vs.

A.K. SCRIBNER, Warden, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus. On February 27, 2006, this court filed findings and recommendations

recommending that the petition be dismissed because it contained a mix of exhausted and

unexhausted claims. The district court adopted these findings and recommendations in its order

filed March 30, 2006 and directed petitioner to file an amended petition. 

Petitioner has now filed a new petition containing five claims, all of which he

raised previously in the California Supreme Court. However, as noted in the findings and

recommendations of February 27, 2006, although the claims relating to the jury instructions on

simple possession of drugs and the equal protection challenge to a sentencing enhancement were

included in the petition for review filed on petitioner’s behalf in the state Supreme Court, these

claims did not refer to any federal case law or federal constitutional provisions. These claims are

Case 2:04-cv-02446-JKS Document 30 Filed 05/23/06 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

2

not exhausted. Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 162-63 (1996) (“a claim for relief in habeas

corpus must include reference to a specific federal constitutional guarantee, as well as a

statement of the facts which entitle the petitioner to relief”). Moreover, even though petitioner

claims to have included a request for a stay to permit him to exhaust various claims, this is not

part of the petition before the court.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Within thirty days of the date of this order, petitioner file a motion for a stay

that complies with Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 125 S.Ct. 1528, 1535 (2005), or file a second

amended petition that contains only the exhausted claims, which are claims one, three and five of

the current petition; and

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner a form for a petition for a

writ of habeas corpus. 

DATED: May 22, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

mill2446.mix

Case 2:04-cv-02446-JKS Document 30 Filed 05/23/06 Page 2 of 2
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



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Clifton Savings Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John A.
Celentano, Jr., 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:

        (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 result of
              operations of the Company.





August 11, 2004                            /s/ John A. Celentano
----------------------                    -------------------------------------
                                           Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 99.1

  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Solely for the purposes of complying with Section 1, U.S.C., 1950, I, the
undersigned Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of M.B.A.
Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended October 31,
2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the
Company.

Dated: January 22, 2003

                                        By: /s/ Gaylen M. Brotherson
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Gaylen M. Brotherson
                                            Chairman of the Board and
                                            Chief Executive Officer
No. 44053.

#### Protest 933902-G of Sibley, Lindsay & Curr Co. (Rochester).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

On the record presented and following *Kohlberg*v. *United States*(27 C. C. P. A. 354, C. A. D. 111) the crocheted cotton gloves in question were held properly classified at 90 percent under paragraph 1529 (a).
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 9:48 AM 

To: AS_Waiver_Requests; Berringer, Bryan 

Cc: Mike Moss 

Subject: RE: [Correction]Samsung Petition for Waiver and Application for Interim Waiver - Dual 

Compressor Refrigerator

  

Good morning Mr. Berringer,

Please register both of these models and not as a revised one model replacing the other.

Thank you.

Best,

Jenni

From: Jenni Chun [mailto:j1.chun@samsung.com] 

Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2013 3:34 PM 

To: AS_Waiver_Requests@ee.doe.gov; 'Berringer, Bryan' 

Cc: Mike Moss; 'Jenni Chun' 

Subject: RE: [Correction]Samsung Petition for Waiver and Application for Interim Waiver - Dual 

Compressor Refrigerator

  

Dear DOE Waiver,

A model name change has been detected and I would like to resubmit the applications reflecting this

correction. Please refer to the attachments.

 From RF34H99****  To RF33H99****

We apologize for any inconvenience. Thank you.

Best regards,

Jenni
Before the Second Division,

January 18, 1943

No. 47923.

#### Protest 73974-K of Caradine Hat Co. (St. Louis).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the hats in question consist of 8-bu. paper hats the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Caradine Hat Co.*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664), those which were imported subsequent to the Netherlands Trade Agreement (T. D. 48075) were held dutiable at 12)4 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (5) and those imported prior to said trade agreement were held dutiable at 25 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (5). Protest sustained to this extent.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7283

JOHN DANIEL KELLY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus FRANK C. SIZER, JR., Warden of WCI; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA98-856-DKC) Submitted: December 17, 1998 Decided: January 7, 1999 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.John Daniel Kelly, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, David Jonathan Tuabe, Assistant Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: John Daniel Kelly seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we denya certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Kelly v. Sizer , No. CA-98-856- DKC (D. Md. July 17, 1998). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
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

SCOTT N. JOHNSON, No. CIV.S-04-2712 DFL DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

MIKE H. MARK, individually

and doing business as WEI

CHINESE RESTAURANT,

Defendant.

____________________________/

This action has been assigned to United States District

Judge David F. Levi and, pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21), has

been referred to Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd for all purposes

encompassed by that provision. 

This matter came before the court on June 3, 2005, at 11:00

a.m. for a Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference. While a copy of

the Order Setting Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference was served

on plaintiff and defendant, both parties failed to appear at the

status conference. Nor were any status reports filed as required.

Case 2:04-cv-02712-DAD Document 19 Filed 06/07/05 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 HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff shall show cause in writing within twenty

(20) days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to

prosecute;

2. Defendant shall show cause in writing within twenty

(20) days why monetary sanctions should not issue for his failure to

appear and file a status report; and

3. Failure to timely file the required writings will

result in the imposition of sanctions, up to and including the

recommendation of dismissal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 6, 2005.

DAD:th

DDad1\orders.prose\pacificstates1121.osc

Case 2:04-cv-02712-DAD Document 19 Filed 06/07/05 Page 2 of 2