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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6678

THOMAS WALKER LABUWI, II,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ERIC BRADLEY, Warden,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:21-hc-02210-FL)

Submitted: March 16, 2023 Decided: March 21, 2023

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Walker Labuwi, II, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6678 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/21/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Walker Labuwi, II—a federal prisoner who was convicted and sentenced 

in the Eastern District of North Carolina but who is presently incarcerated in the Northern 

District of West Virginia—filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in the North Carolina district 

court, which the court denied. A district court may only grant habeas relief within its 

jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(a), 2242; Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442-43

(2004). Because Labuwi is incarcerated in the Northern District of West Virginia, 

jurisdiction over his § 2241 petition lies in that district—not in the district court below. 

See Padilla, 542 U.S. at 442-44.

Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for the district court to 

determine whether transferring Labuwi’s § 2241 petition would serve the interest of justice, 

see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1406(a), 1631, or whether the petition is more appropriately dismissed 

without prejudice to refiling in the appropriate district court. 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.

VACATED AND REMANDED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6678 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/21/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Gerald Beckwith, as Chief Executive Officer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of IPEX, Inc.;

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 small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) 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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer is made
known to us by others,  particularly  during the period in which this  report is
being prepared;

      (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's  disclosure
controls 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 small  business  issuer's
internal  control  over  financial  reporting  that  occurred  during  the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or
is reasonably likely to materially  affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based  on  our  most  recent  evaluation  of  internal  control  over  financial
reporting,  to the small business  issuer's  auditors and the audit committee of
the small  business  issuer'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 small  business  issuer'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 small business  issuer's  internal
control over financial reporting.

August 22, 2005

/s/ Gerald Beckwith
------------------------
Gerald Beckwith
Chief Executive Officer
# Missouri Court of Appeals

Southern District

FEBRUARY 18, 2016

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 84.16(b).

1. Case No. SD33368

Re: JIMMY KENT RIGGINS,

Petitioner-Respondent,

v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE,

Respondent-Appellant.
THIS AGREEMENT dated as of the 18th of December 2002 is

BETWEEN:

Sun Power Corporation 
(the 'Company') a company incorporated in the State of Nevada with offices located at 414 Viewcrest Rd., Kelowna, B.C. V1W 4J8.
**Robyn M Storer
 (the 'Consultant') resident at Houston Palace, 7 Avenue Princesse Grace, Monaco MC 98000.
**WHEREAS:**
The Company has signed an option to acquire certain mining property(s) in Mexico (the 'Property') and wishes to retain the services of the Consultant to assist it in its evaluation of the Property.
**IT IS NOW HEREBY AGREED THAT:
- The Consultant will provide consultancy services to the Company to commence as of the date of this Agreement (the 'Term').
- The duties of the Consultant during the Term will be:
Reporting to the Company on the economic viability of operating the mine, ore reserves, the mine expansion plan and the availability of contracts with smelters to process the ore produced
Assisting the officers of the Company in preparing presentations to existing and prospective investors in the Company.

- The Company will pay the Consultant:
a fee of US$50,000 in shares of common stock of the Company valued at a price of US$0.25 per share.
all reasonable out of pocket expenses incurred in the carrying out of her duties as consultant in evaluating the Property.
Such payments will be made to the Consultant on submission of an appropriate invoice.

- The Consultant agrees to keep confidential all information provided to her about the Property and the Company and not to pass on such information to third parties without the prior written consent of an officer of the Company. This restriction will not apply to:
Information that is or becomes public;
When the Consultant is obliged to disclose information about the Company or the Property by legal or regulatory authorities.

- This Agreement is subject to the Laws of England.
**AGREED TO:******
**Exhibit 32.2**

# * *

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of CHAAS Acquisitions, LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ronald J. Gardhouse, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

(2) The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ RONALD J. GARDHOUSE        |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|
| Ronald J. Gardhouse            |
| Chief Financial Officer        |
| (Principal Financial  Officer) |
| November 12, 2004              |

 

1

----
No. 46764.

#### Petition 6199-R of M. J. Lampert & Sons, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

The secretary of the petitioner corporation testified that his concern had been importing these velveteens for 50 years and that during the past 10 years entry was made at the invoice values, which were always accepted as the proper dutiable value. He further testified that his concern did not receive notice of the higher price for this merchandise until a time subsequent to the date of the entry in question. The customs examiner also testified that at the time the entry in question was made no information was before him showing a value different from the entered value, and that it was not until after ap-praisement that he was supplied with a price list setting forth the value which the court found to be the proper dutiable yalue. In accordance therewith the court was satisfied that the entry was made without any intention to defraud the revenue or deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
(V. D. 85)

#### E. Leitz, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 902674; 908334.

(Decided October 17, 1958)

*Eugene B. Pickrell*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

OliyeR, Chief Judge:

This matter is before me on remand from classification proceedings decided by the first division of this court in *E. Leitz, Inc.*v. *United States,*39 Cust. Ct. 515, Abstract 61387, and it has been submitted for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto that the merchandise covered by the above remand of protest consists of Microscopes and Parts, and Wooden Containers, for such Microscopes and Parts, which were the subject of a judgment and decision by the First Division of this Court in the case of *E. Leitz, Inc.*vs *United Stales,*Abstract 61387, on December 5, 1957, wherein it is stated “[remand] the matter, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, U. S. C. § 2636 (d), for further proceedings before a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the imported merchandise in the manner provided by law”.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States was as follows:



IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise.

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the above remand of protest may be deemed to be submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

*462On the agreed facts, I find export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question, and I hold such dutiable value for each of the articles to be as hereinabove set forth in the stipulation of submission. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
##### 



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 HLI Operating Company, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Curtis J. Clawson, Chairman of the Board, President and 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, to
the best of my knowledge:  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company. /s/ Curtis J. ClawsonCurtis J. ClawsonChairman of the Board,President and Chief Executive OfficerJune 15, 2004
 40
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 7742

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ALLAH BURMAN, a/k/a A , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. James K. Bredar , Chief District Judge. ( 1:01

- cr - 00115

- JKB

- 5; 1:20

- cv - 03003

- JKB )

Submitted : October 14, 2021 Decided: January 11, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge , RICHARDSON, Circuit Judge , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Allah Burman, Appellant Pro Se. Lauren Elizabeth Perry, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

U npublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Allah Burman appeals the district court’s order construing his petition for writ of habeas corpus as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and dismissing it without prejudice
for fa ilure to obtain pre

- filing authorization from this Court. ∗ We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Burman’s pending motions and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Burman , No. 1:01

- cr 00115

- JKB

- 5 (D. Md. Oct. 20, 2020). 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

∗ We deny a certificate of appealability as unnecessary. See Harbison v. Bell , 556 U.S. 180, 183 (2009); Fontanez v. O’Brien , 807 F.3d 84, 86 (4th Cir. 2015); United States v. McRae , 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4t h Cir. 2015).
----

| 1. | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011 , 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 for the period ending March 31, 2011 , fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of East Coast Diversified Corporation. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: May 10, 2011                                                                                                     |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                                                                                   |   |
| /s/ Kayode Aladesuyi                                                                                                   |   |
| Kayode AladesuyiChief Executive Officer and Interim Chief Financial Officer(Principal Executive and Financial Officer) |   |
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 14

- 00878

- CR

No. 04

- 14

- 00879

- CR

Matthew Douglas HAYES

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR10841W Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE ANGELINI , AND JUSTICE PULLIAM

In accordance with this court’s opinion issued this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. It is ORDERED that no costs shall be assessed against ap pellant in relation to this appeal because he qualifies as an indigent under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.1.

SIGNED June 10, 2015

.

_____________________________ Jason Pulliam, Justice
No. 66866.

#### The Keepnews Co. *v.*United States,

protest 326728-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the merchandise described on the invoice as items 122 and 123 consists of vases with covers and that said vases are copies or replicas of original productions, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained. *United States v. Baumgarten & Co.*(2 Ct. Cust. Appls. 321, T.D. 32052); *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C.C.P.A. 15, C.A.D. 458); *F. Lunning, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(39 Cust. Ct. 271, C.D. 1941); and Abstract 62694, followed.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v KENT R. MEYER, Airman Third Class, U. S. Air Force, Appellant

15 USCMA 268, 35 CMR 240

No. 18,033

February 26, 1965

*Major James E. Caulfield*argued the cause for Appellant, Accused. With him on the brief was *Colonel Robert 0. Rollman.*

*Captain Donald W. Brewer*argued the cause for Appellee, United States. With him on the brief was *Colonel Emanuel Lewis.*

Opinion of the Court

FERGUSON, Judge:

Tried by a general court-martial convened at RAF Alconbury, Huntingdon-shire, England, upon a charge of larceny, in violation of Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 121, 10 USC § 921, and an Additional Charge of the same nature, the accused was found guilty and sentenced to bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement at hard labor for two years, and reduction. Intermediate appellate authorities affirmed, and we granted accused’s petition for review upon the same issue involved in United States v Enloe, 15 USCMA 256, 35 CMR 228, this day decided.

At the trial, it appeared that the defense counsel had, prior thereto, sought to interview Special Agent Jack D. Hanson, Office of Special Investigations, relative to a statement which he had obtained from the accused concerning the charge and specification. Agent Hanson, acting pursuant to a directive similar to that involved in United States v Enloe, supra, refused to be interviewed except in the presence' *269of the trial counsel. In addition, at the trial, he indicated to the law officer he had since received further instructions from his superiors which would also require the presence of “the district commander or senior experienced OSI agent” at any such interview “if counsel asked for a continuance here so that he could [conduct such an] interview . . . now.” Over appropriate defense objection regarding the denial of an opportunity for a private interview of the witness, his testimony was received in evidence.

Our decision in United States v Enloe, supra, is equally dispositive of the question here presented. The Government may not interpose itself in the ordinary case between a witness and defense counsel, in order to set the conditions under which counsel will be permitted to interview him. The error, however, goes only to the original charge, for it was only with this matter that Agent Hanson’s testimony was concerned. The Additional Charge and its specification involved an entirely separate and unrelated incident.

The decision of the board of review is reversed, and the record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force. A rehearing may be ordered on the original charge, its specification, and the penalty, or the board may reassess the sentence on the basis of the findings of guilty of the Additional Charge.

Judge Kilday concurs.

Quinn, Chief Judge

(dissenting):

I would affirm the decision of the board of review. See my dissent in United States v Enloe, 15 USCMA 256, 35 CMR 228.
EXHIBIT 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

|                                     |  |         |  |           | 
|------------------------------------ |  | ------- |  | --------- | 
|Name                                 |  | State   |  | Ownership | 
|AirWater Corporation                 |  | Florida |  | 100%      | 
|AirWater Patents Corp                |  | Florida |  | 100%      | 
|Air Water Fridges and Freezers, Inc. |  | Florida |  | 100%      | 
|Atmospheric Water Technologies       |  | Texas   |  | 92%       | 
|Digital Way S. A.                    |  | Peru    |  | 27%       | 
|Millennium Electric TOU, Ltd.        |  | Israel  |  | 100%      | 
|Misa Water Products, Ltd.            |  | Florida |  | 100%      | 
|Solar One, Inc.                      |  | Florida |  | 100%      | 
|Solar Style, Ltd.                    |  | Israel  |  | 100%      | 
|Solar Style (USA, I)nc.              |  | Florida |  | 100%      |
No. 54727.

#### Arthur H. Kalfus *v.*United States,

protest 150262-K (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

When the protest was called for trial there was no appearance on behalf of the plaintiff. An examination of the official papers failing to disclose any reason for disturbing the action of the collector, which was presumptively correct, the protest was overruled.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.10


                    AMENDMENT TO DIRECTORS' STOCK OPTION PLAN
                              ADOPTED MAY 31, 2001


         RESOLVED, that the first sentence of Section 4(B) of the Hotel
Reservations Network, Inc. Directors' Stock Option Plan is hereby amended in its
entirety to read as follows:

             "Each Director shall receive upon initial election to office
             an Option to acquire 15,000 shares of Common Stock, and each
             Director shall thereafter annually on the date of the
             Company's Annual Meeting of Stockholders at which such
             Director is re-elected to office (provided such date is at
             least 12 months following such Director's initial election to
             office) receive an Option to acquire 10,000 shares of Common
             Stock, each such Option at a price equal to the Fair Market
             Value of the shares of Common Stock subject to such Option on
             the trading day immediately preceding the Grant Date."
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

CARL DAVID WHITE, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2276 GEB GGH P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Defendants have requested an extension of time to file and serve a responsive

pleading pursuant to the court’s order of January 12, 2005. Good cause appearing, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ April 20, 2005 application for an extension of time is granted; and

2. Defendants shall file and serve a responsive pleading on or before May 23,

2005. 

DATED: 4/27/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:bb

whit2276.36 

Case 2:04-cv-02276-GEB-GGH Document 17 Filed 04/28/05 Page 1 of 1