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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6760

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JAMES EDWARD MILBOURNE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior

District Judge. (5:03-cr-00121-H)

Submitted: November 21, 2007 Decided: December 5, 2007

Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Edward Milbourne, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

James Edward Milbourne seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). 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 Milbourne has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### RESTE REALTY CORP., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. JOY M. COOPER, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

*Messrs. Bavin <& Bavin*for the respondent.

*Messrs. Calissi, Gelman & Guccio*for the petitioner.

May 14, 1968.

Granted.
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the annual report of AcuNetx, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, 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:





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





2.     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: September 9, 2010





By: /s/ Robert S. Corrigan


Robert S. Corrigan,


President and Chief Executive Officer





This Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed "FILED" by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
No. 51769.

#### Protests 120728-K, etc., of Wm. Filene’s Sons Co. (Boston, etc.).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed June 24, 2019 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00626-CV 

WILLIAM BIRCHETT, Appellant 

V. 

CITY OF FORT WORTH, TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-06941 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Whitehill, Partida-Kipness, and Pedersen, III 

Opinion by Justice Whitehill 

Appellant appeals from the trial court’s May 23, 2019 order denying his emergency 

application for temporary restraining order to prevent spoliation of evidence. The Court 

questioned its jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal. We instructed appellant to file, by June 

10, 2019, a letter brief addressing our concern and cautioned him that failure to comply may result 

in dismissal of the appeal without further notice. As of today’s date, appellant has not filed a 

response. 

Generally, appellate courts have jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments. See 

Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). The legislature has created narrow 

exceptions to this general rule, allowing appellate courts to review specific interlocutory orders 

when explicitly permitted by statute. See Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352–53 (Tex. 1998) 
 –2– 

(per curiam); e.g., TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §§ 15.003(b), 27.008, 51.014(a), 51.016. 

There is no statutory exception allowing an appeal from an order denying an application for a 

temporary restraining order to prevent spoliation of evidence. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal 

for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). 

190626F.P05 

 

/Bill Whitehill/ 

BILL WHITEHILL 

JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

WILLIAM BIRCHETT, Appellant 

No. 05-19-00626-CV V. 

CITY OF FORT WORTH, TEXAS, 

Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-06941. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Whitehill. 

Justices Partida-Kipness and Pedersen, III 

participating. 

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

 It is ORDERED that appellee CITY OF FORT WORTH, TEXAS recover its costs of this 

appeal from appellant WILLIAM BIRCHETT. 

Judgment entered June 24, 2019
No. 57329.

protest 196764-K (New York).

#### Davies, Turner & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

The collector’s memorandum states that there .was no compliance with the provisions of section 10.53 *(a)*and (6), Customs Regulations of 1943. The court held that compliance therewith is a condition precedent to the exemption from duty provided in paragraph 1811, *Davies, Turner & Co.*v. *United States*(25 Cust. Ct. 182, C. D. 1283), followed. An examination of the record failing to disclose evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s classification, the protest was overruled.
EXHIBIT 32

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

     The undersigned, Stephen M. Siedow, the Chief Executive Officer, President
and Chief Financial Officer of Vizario, Inc. (the "Company"), DOES HEREBY
CERTIFY, that:

     1.   The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December
          31, 2002 (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of
          Section 13(a) 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.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement
this 9th day of October, 2003.


                                            By:  /s/  Stephen M. Siedow
                                               --------------------------------
                                                      Stephen M. Siedow,
                                                      Chief Executive Officer,
                                                      President and
                                                      Chief Financial Officer


     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Vizario, Inc. and will be retained by Vizario, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or it staff upon request.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease  Control and Prevention (CDC) announces a meeting of the aforementioned Special Emphasis Panel.

*Time and Date:*                         8 a.m.-5 p.m., February 6, 2007 (Closed).                     

*Place:*                         Residence Inn Marriott, 1456 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314.                     

*Status:*                         The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.                     

*Matters To Be Discussed:*                         The meeting will include the review, discussion, and evaluation of research grant applications in response to RFA OH-07-002, “Childhood Agricultural Safety and Health Research.”                     

*Contact Person for More Information:*                         Steve Olenchock, Scientific Review Administrator, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1095 Willowdale Road, Morgantown, WV 26506, telephone (304) 285-6271.                     

                        The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign                         **Federal Register**                         notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                     

Elaine Baker, 

Acting Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. E7-506 Filed 1-16-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
#### JEAN DZIEDZIC, *ET AL.,*PLAINTIFFS-PETITIONERS, v. SAINT JOHN’S CLEANERS AND SHIRT LAUNDERERS, INC., *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, v. IVAN WINGER, *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS.

See same case below: 99 *N. J. Super.*565.

*Messrs. Schwartz, Horowitz <& Krivitsky*and *Mr. Frank Lerner,*for the petitioners.

*Mr. William J. Murray*for the respondents.

May 28, 1968.

Granted.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 54 (Wednesday, March 21, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 13316]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5131]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

Federal Register Citation Of Previous Announcement: [To be Published].

Status: Closed Meeting.

Place: 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC.

Date And Time Of Previously Announced Meeting: Wednesday, March 21, 
2007 at 2 p.m.

Change In The Meeting: Time Change.
    The Closed Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, March 21, 2007 at 2 
p.m. has been changed to Wednesday, March 21, 2007 at 1 p.m.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to 
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, 
please contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

     Dated: March 16, 2007.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-5131 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, the  undersigned  officer of Goldman Sachs
Hedge Fund Strategies  LLC, hereby  certifies that Goldman Sachs Hedge Fund
Partners II, LLC's (the "Company") Form 10-Q for the period ended September
30, 2005 (the  "Report")  fully complies with the  requirements  of Section
13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,  of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and
that the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

                                              /s/ George H. Walker
                                              -------------------------------
                                              Name:   George H. Walker
                                              Title:  Chief Executive Officer

Dated:  November 14, 2005

     The foregoing  certification  is being furnished solely pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  ss.  1350  and is not  being  filed as part of the  Report  or as a
separate disclosure document.
**EXHIBIT      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      OF**

**CHIEF      EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

| (1)                     | The              Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Registrant for the period              ended December 31, 2006 (the “Report”), to which this statement is filed              as an exhibit, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)              or              15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;              and |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2)                     | The              information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material              respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the              Registrant. |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | By:/s/                Trevor DrinkwaterTrevor                DrinkwaterChief                Executive Officer(Principal                Executive Officer)Dated:                May 3, 2007 |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION N o s . 04

- 16

- 00775

- CR & 04

- 16

- 00776

- CR Samuel Chacon MENCHACA , Jr., Appellant
v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas Trial Court No s . A15427 & A15428 Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Luz Elena D. Ch apa, Justice Delivered and Filed: December 13, 2017 AFFIRMED Samuel Chacon Menchaca, Jr. entered an open plea of guilty to two offenses of delivery of a controlled substance in a drug free zone. Menchaca also pled true to two enhancement paragraphs in the indictments. The trial court sentenced Menchaca as a habitual offender to thirty

five years’ imprisonment for each offense with the sentences to run concurrently. Menchaca’s court

- appointed attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluati on of the record in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel concludes the appeal has no merit. Counsel provided Menchaca with a copy of the brief and informed him of04

- 16

- 00775

- CR & 04

- 16

- 00776

- CR

- 2

- his right to review the record and file his own brief. See N ichols v. State , 954 S.W.2d 83, 85

- 86 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State , 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Menchaca did not file a pro se brief. After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree tha t the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Appellate counsel’s request to withdraw is granted. Nichols , 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns , 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Menc haca wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Menchaca must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or Menchaca must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for di scretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the later of: (1) the date of this opinion; or (2) the date the last timely motion for rehearing is overruled by this court. See T EX . R. A PP . P
. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See T EX . R. A PP . P . 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX . R. A PP . P . 68.4. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chie f Justice DO NOT PUBLISH
**Exhibit 21**

 

**KIMBALL INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIESSUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT**

As of June 30, 2009, the subsidiaries of theRegistrant were as follows:

|   | Jurisdiction of     Incorporation
Percent of     Voting Stock Owned     By the     Registrant         Kimball International Marketing, Inc.Indiana100% Kimball Furniture Group, Inc.Indiana100% Kimball Electronics, Inc.Indiana100% Kimball International Transit, Inc.Indiana100% Kimball Electronics - Mexico, S.A. de C.V.Mexico100% Kimball Electronics (Thailand) LimitedThailand100% Kimball Electronics Poland Sp. z o.o.Poland100% Kimball Hospitality, Inc.Indiana100% Kimball Electronics (Wales) LimitedUnited Kingdom100% Kimball Electronics (Nanjing) Co., Ltd.China100% Kimball Electronics Tampa, Inc.Florida100% National Office Furniture, Inc.Delaware100% Kimball Electronics Netherlands B.V.Netherlands100%  |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### HOWARD SMITH, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. TOWN OF WEST ORANGE, RESPONDENT-PETITIONER.

*Messrs. Brause, Callaghan & Coyle*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Louis C. Jacobson*for the respondent.

January 29, 1968.

Denied.
[No. 14486.

In Bank.

March 28, 1892.]

#### SAN GABRIEL WINE COMPANY, Appellant, *v.*WILLIAM BEHLOW et al., Respondents.

Practice—New Trial — Conflict of Evidence. — Where the evidence is conflicting, the supreme court will not order a new trial on the ground that the evidence is insufficient to justify the verdict or the findings.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County refusing a new trial.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

*Chapman & Hendrick,*for Appellant.

*Gottschalk & Luckel,*for Respondents.

Sharpstein, J.

This appeal is from an order denying appellant’s motion for a new trial in an action brought to recover the sum of five hundred dollars, alleged to be due for the balance of the purchase price of a tract of land sold by plaintiff to defendants for the sum of four thousand five hundred dollars, upon which the sum of four thousand dollars was paid, and for a decree foreclosing a vendor’s lien. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants agreed to pay four thousand five hundred dollars for the land, of which four thousand dollars was paid, and a conveyance of the premises was executed by plaintiff to the defendants upon a promise of defendants to pay five hundred dollars more. Defendants deny that they ever agreed to pay more than four thousand dollars for said land. This, with some other issues, was submitted to a jury, which found against the plaintiff and in favor of defendants thereon. The grounds of plaintiff’s motion for a new trial are, that the *111evidence is insufficient to justify the verdict of the jury or findings of the court, and that the decision is against law, and errors occurring at the trial and excepted to by plaintiff. ■ But the ground mainly relied on is insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict or finding that the amount for which plaintiff sold the property was four thousand dollars. Of course, plaintiff could not have sold the property to defendants for more than defendants paid or agreed to pay for it. There is evidence on the part of plaintiff tending to prove that defendants agreed to pay four thousand five hundred dollars for the property; and evidence on the part of defendants that they agreed to pay four thousand dollars only for the property; this presents a conflict in the evidence, which, under a well-settled rule in this state, precludes a review of it by this court. A review of it would involve a determination of the relative credibility of the witnesses, and the weight which should be given- to the testimony of each respectively. Those were matters exclusively for the jury and the trial court to consider and pass upon. We fail to find in the record any errors of law occurring at the trial which were excepted to by the plaintiff. The finding of the jury is not, in our opinion, contrary to any of the instructions of the court. Besides, the court adopted the finding of the jury as the finding of the court.

Order affirmed.

Harrison, J., McFarland, J., De Haven, J,, GÁroutte, J., and Paterson, J., concurred.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-12-00866-CR

Larry DIEKEN,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11-1564-CR

Honorable Gary L. Steel, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is 

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED April 16, 2014.

_____________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice