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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7092

WILLIAM BROACH, Petitioner – Appellant,

v. ROBERT STEVENSON, Warden, Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (0:08-cv-01627-HMH)

Submitted: October 29, 2009 Decided: December 17, 2009

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Broach, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: William Broach seeks to appe al the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. MillerEl 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 Broach 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
No. 56048.

protest 146580-K (San Francisco).

#### L. N. Jackson & Co., Inc. v. United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

J UDGMENT

Stephen Paul Patel

, * From the 91st District Court

of Eastland County,

Trial Court No. 24348

.

Vs. No. 11

- 1 7

- 00 211

- CR * December 14 , 2017

The State of Texas

, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(P anel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J. , and Dauphinot,

sitting by assignment )

(Bailey, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the appeal

should be dismissed. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opinion, the appeal

is dismissed.
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 Annual Report of Ivision Group Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michel Bourbonnais, President and Principal Executive Officer, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Date:  November 6, 2006

By:  /s/ Michel Bourbonnais

Name:  Michel Bourbonnais

Title:    President (Principal Executive Officer)