alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22
- 7379
MARCUS ALBINUS JOSEPH, a/k/a Marcus A. Joseph, a/k/a Marcus Albines Joseph , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. WARDEN WALLACE, Kirkland Correctional Institution , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Anderson

. Richard Mark Gergel , District Judge. ( 8:22

- cv - 03282

- RMG )

Submitted : April 25, 2023 Decided: April 28, 2023

Before GREGORY , Chief Judge, THACKER, Circuit Judge , and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Marcus Albinus Joseph , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7379 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/28/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Marcus Albinus Joseph, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation, construing Joseph’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition , and dismissing th e petition as unauthorized and successive. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional c laims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis , 580 U.S. 100, 115

- 17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a d ebatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Joseph has not made the requisite s howing. 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 this court and argument would not aid the decision al process.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 22-7379 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/28/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
#### Beatrix SHERMAN, Appellant, v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK IN PALM BEACH, a national banking institution, Appellee.

No. 69-826.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 2, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; Robert S. Hewitt, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### R. S. ELECTRIC AND ARMATURE WORKS v. GEORGE ENGINE CO., INC., et al.

No. 60220.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 28, 1977.

In re: George Engine Co., Inc., et al. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Lafourche. 346 So.2d 783.

Writ denied. On the facts found, the result is correct.

MARCUS, J.,

is of the opinion that the writ should be granted.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

__________________________________________ 

 ) 

In the Matter of ) 

 ) 

CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY N.V. ) 

 a foreign corporation, ) 

 ) 

CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY ) 

 a corporation, ) Docket No. 9300 

 ) 

PITT-DES MOINES, INC., ) 

 a corporation. ) 

__________________________________________) 

RESPONDENTS' MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR FURTHER BRIEFING ON 

SPECIFIC REMEDY ISSUES 

On May 16, 2005, Respondents Chicago Bridge & Iron Company and Chicago Bridge & 

Iron Company N.V. ("CB&I") were served with the Commission's Decision and Order Partially 

Denying Respondents' Petition for Reconsideration and Directing Further Briefing on Specific 

Remedy Issues ("Decision and Order"). The Commission's Decision and Order directs 

Respondents to "file a brief within 10 days of service of this Decision and Order" identifying 

assets in the "Relevant Business" definition that are unnecessary to build the relevant products 

and water tank products in light of certain facts outlined by the Commission. See Decision and 

Order, p. 24. The Decision and Order also allows Respondents to include an alternative 

suggestion for a divestiture package consistent with certain factual findings of the Commission. 

See id. 

Pursuant to the time schedule set forth by the Decision and Order, Respondents' briefing 

is due on or before May 26, 2005. Respondents will need additional time to conduct the review 
2 

and analysis necessary to properly respond to the Decision and Order. Accordingly, Respondents 

request an extension until June 6, 2005 to file the briefing directed by the Decision and Order. 
3 

Dated: May 19, 2005 

Respectfully submitted, 

 

 Clifford H. Aronson 

 SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 

 4 Times Square 

 New York, NY 10036-6522 

 Telephone No.: 212-735-2644 

 Facsimile No.: 917-777-2644 

 Charles W. Schwartz 

 SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 

 1600 Smith, Suite 4400 

 Houston, TX 77002-7348 

 Telephone No.: 713-655-5160 

 Facsimile No.: 888-329-2286 

 ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENTS 

 CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY N.V. 

 AND CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Sara Bensley, hereby certify that on May 19, 2005, a true and correct copy of 

the foregoing was served on the following persons by hand delivery: 

Donald S. Clark Rhett R. Krulla, Esq. 

Secretary Assistant Director 

Federal Trade Commission Bureau of Competition 

Room H-159 Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Room S-3602 

Washington, D.C. 20580 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

 Washington, D.C. 20580 

Steven L. Wilensky, Esq. 

Federal Trade Commission 

601 New Jersey Avenue, N.W. 

Room NJ-6120 

Washington, D.C. 20001

 

 Sara Bensley
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 11, 2015

No. 04-15-00349-CV

Steven Mitchell GARY,

Appellant

v.

Mary ROMAN: Gerald C. Moton, Esq.; Irene Hall, Grand Jury Foreman; and unidentified 

Prosecutors of the 175th District Court,

Appellees

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015-CI-01986

Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s request that this court appoint counsel to represent him in this matter is 

denied.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 11th day of August, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JAMES WHITFIELD, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

.

No. 4D22

- 644

[ July 6, 2023 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Caroline Shepherd , Judge; L.T. Case No.

502019CF001051BMB

.

Antony P. Ryan, Regional Counsel

, and Louis G. Carres, Assistant Regional Conflict Counsel, West Palm Beach, for a ppellant

.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Sorraya M. Solages

Jon es, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for a ppellee

.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

K LINGENSMITH

, C.J., F ORST and A RTAU

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Assignment of Contract



 Exhibit 10.2 

ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT 

THIS ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT (this “Assignment”) is made and entered into as of March 7, 2014, by and between WOODFIELD
ACQUISITIONS, LLC, a North Carolina limited liability company (“Assignor”), and GGT OXFORD VENTURE MD, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Assignee”). 

WHEREAS, Assignor has entered into that certain contract described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the “Contract”), with
respect to the acquisition of that certain real property located along Coca Cola Drive in Howard County, Maryland; and 
 WHEREAS, Assignor
has agreed to assign all of its right, title and interest in, to and under said Contract to Assignee, and Assignee has agreed to accept such right, title and interest and assume all of Assignor’s obligations under the Contract. 

NOW, THEREFORE, FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration, Assignor hereby assigns to Assignee
all of its right, title and interest in, to and under the Contract, and Assignee hereby accepts such right, title and interest and assumes all of Assignor’s obligations under the Contract. 

[SIGNATURES INCLUDED ON FOLLOWING PAGES] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Assignment to be executed and effective
as of the date hereinabove set forth. 
  

					
	ASSIGNOR:
	
	 WOODFIELD ACQUISITIONS, LLC,
 a
North Carolina limited liability company

		
	By:	 	/s/ Todd H. Jacobus
	Name:	 	Todd H. Jacobus
	Title:	 	Manager
	
	ASSIGNEE:
	
	 GGT OXFORD VENTURE MD, LLC,
 a
Delaware limited liability company

		
	By:	 	 WF Oxford Square, LLC,
 a Delaware
limited liability company,
 its Operating Member

			
		 	By:	 	/s/ Todd H. Jacobus
		 	Name:	 	Todd H. Jacobus
		 	Title:	 	President








 EXHIBIT A 

CONTRACT 
 Contract for the Purchase of
Real Property dated May 10, 2013, between Assignor and KELLOGG-CCP, LLC, as amended pursuant to that certain First Amendment to Contract for the Purchase of Real Property dated June 13, 2013, as further amended pursuant to that certain
Second Amendment to Contract for the Purchase of Real Property dated July 23, 2013, as further amended pursuant to that certain Third Amendment to Contract for the Purchase of Real Property dated August 8, 2013, and as further amended
pursuant to that certain Fourth Amendment to Contract for the Purchase of Real Property dated February 24, 2014.
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICER (1)

Pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as  created  by  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002,  the  following  certification  is  being  made to
accompany the  Registrant's  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
April 30, 2005:

In connection with the Quarterly  Report of Del Global  Technologies  Corp. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ended  April 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Mark
Koch,  Principal  Accounting  Officer of the  Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350,  adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002 that to my knowledge:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or
            Section  15(d),  as applicable,  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 Company.

                                          /s/ Mark Koch
                                          ------------------------------------
                                          Name: Mark Koch
                                          Title:  Principal Accounting Officer
                                          Date: June 14, 2005

      (1)   A signed original of this written statement  required by Section 906
            has  been  provided  to Del  Global  Technologies  Corp  and will be
            retained  by Del Global  Technologies  Corp.  and  furnished  to the
            Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 767 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 767

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
   at 180 West Main Street in Abingdon, Virginia, as the ``H. Emory 
     Widener, Jr., Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 24, 2019

 Mr. Griffith introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
   at 180 West Main Street in Abingdon, Virginia, as the ``H. Emory 
     Widener, Jr., Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building and United States courthouse located at 180 
West Main Street in Abingdon, Virginia, shall be known and designated 
as the ``H. Emory Widener, Jr., Federal Building and United States 
Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building and United States 
courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 
to the ``H. Emory Widener, Jr., Federal Building and United States 
Courthouse''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Jack TOPALIAN, Appellant, v. Helen TOPALIAN, Appellee.

No. 69-719.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 13, 1970.

Rehearing Denied March 23, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; Robert S. Hewitt, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>

TOTAL-TEL USA COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

Exhibit 27 - FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE

THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION 
EXTRACTED FROM THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF 
JULY 31, 1998 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF 
OPERATIONS FOR SIX MONTHS ENDED JULY 31, 1998 
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                       2,661,944
<SECURITIES>                                   568,523
<RECEIVABLES>                               25,360,532
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,119,421
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            30,220,927
<PP&E>                                      20,887,969
<DEPRECIATION>                              (7,222,119)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              44,773,315
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       22,630,395
<BONDS>                                      1,833,614
<COMMON>                                       430,358
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  19,517,026
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                44,773,315
<SALES>                                     65,438,437
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            65,438,437
<CGS>                                       51,280,565
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               51,280,565
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            12,966,872
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               412,212
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              97,941
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                871,978
<INCOME-TAX>                                   331,960
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            540,018
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   540,018
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.07
        





</TABLE>
No. 10111.

#### The Butterick Publishing Co. *v.*Paige.

Decided March 3, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

*Messrs. Carr, Stearns & Chamberlain,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Meyer & Mooney,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Shauck, C. J., Crew and Spear, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   Exhibit 23(a)

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

The Board of Directors
VIMRX Pharmaceuticals, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in registration statement (No. 
333-15693) on Form S-8, registration statement (No. 333-02136) on Form S-3 and 
registration statement (No. 333-69471) on Form S-2 of our report dated March 26,
1999, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of VIMRX Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, and the related consolidated 
statements of operations changes in shareholders' equity and cash flows for the 
years then ended which report appears in the December 31, 1998 annual report on 
Form 10-K of VIMRX Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

KPMG LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 30, 1999
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Office of the Secretary

November 10, 2014

Robert Thompson

State of Texas

Re: In the Matter of Made in the USA Brand, LLC

File No. 142 3121, Docket No. C-4497

Thank you for commenting on the Federal Trade Commission’s proposed consent 

agreement in the above-referenced proceeding. The Commission has considered your comment 

and placed it on the public record pursuant to Rule 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice, 16 C.F.R. § 4.9(b)(6)(ii).

In your comment, you question whether Respondent is motivated only by money. You 

do not propose any revisions to the draft complaint or the consent agreement. Therefore, after 

considering your comment, the Commission has determined that the relief set forth in the 

consent agreement is appropriate and sufficient to remedy the violations alleged in the complaint.

At this time, the Commission has determined that the public interest would best be served 

by issuing the Decision and Order in final form without modification. The final Decision and 

Order and other relevant materials are available on the Commission’s website at 

http://www.ftc.gov. It helps the Commission’s analysis to hear from a variety of sources in its 

work, and we thank you again for your comment.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark

Secretary
Appendix M CAIR Implementation
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 United
States Code § 1350 and

Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934



The Undersigned hereby certifies that to his knowledge the quarterly report of Federal-Mogul
Corporation (the Company) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in
such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



A signed original of this written statement, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the
electronic version of this written statement, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



Date: November 5, 2003



By:

/s/    Charles G. McClureCharles G. McClureChief Executive Officer




By:

/s/    G. Michael LynchG. Michael LynchChief Financial Officer




47
Exhibit 23.2





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement on Form S-8 of our report  dated February 27, 2009, except for the effects of the changes in disclosure for reportable segments discussed in Note 10, the changes in noncontrolling interest discussed in Note 2, changes in earnings per share discussed in Note 2, collectively as to which the date is May 21, 2009 and except for changes in items reflected in discontinued operations discussed in Note 5, as to which the date is February 28, 2011 relating to the consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss, of equity and of cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2008, which appears in Colonial Properties Trust's Annual Report on Form 10‐K for the year ended December 31, 2010.





/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Birmingham, Alabama


May 17, 2011
#### Frank L. THORNTON et al. v. Sharon MORAN et al. Sharon MORAN v. Frank L. THORNTON et al.

No. 60342.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 21, 1977.

In re: Frank L. Thornton applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 348 So.2d 79.

Writ refused. No error of law.
FILED

October 27, 1999

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

KERRY D. LOVETT, )

) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9907-CC-00249

Appellant, ) (No. 12030-12254 Below)

)

VS. ) CHEATHAM COUNTY

) The Hon. Robert E. Burch

STATE OF TENNESSEE, )

) (Dismissal of Petition for Jail Credits)

Appellee. ) 

) AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court upon the state’s motion requesting that the

judgment in the above-styled cause be affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Tennessee Court of

Criminal Appeals Rules. The appellant opposes the motion. Upon reviewing the record,

the appellant’s brief, the state’s motion, and the appellant’s reply, we find that it is an

appropriate matter for affirmance under Rule 20.

From the record, it appears that the appellant filed a motion to receive jail

credits on January 21, 1999. Thereafter, on June 15, 1999, the trial court dismissed the

motion for lack of jurisdiction. Later, on August 18, 1999, the trial court entered an order

giving the appellant credit for time served in jail prior to and after the judgments were

entered. On appeal, the petitioner contends that he is entitled to “two for one” credits and

“behavioral credits.” See T.C.A. §§ 41-2-123 and 41-21-236(e). 

As a general rule, once a prisoner is in the custody of the Tennessee

Department of Correction, the proper avenue by which to address sentence reduction

credits, including pre-trial jail credits, is through the Administrative Procedures Act. See

T.C.A. § 4-5-101, et seq. see also, Russell Kirby v. State, No. 03C01-9309-CR-00303,

(Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Aug. 22, 1994). This Court has recognized that where both

the state and the petitioner are in agreement that the petitioner is entitled to the credits, the

trial court’s order granting the credits does not require reversal. See Matthew P. Finlaw v.

Anderson County Jail, No. 03C01-9212-CR-00448 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Aug.

13, 1993). See also, State v. Henry, 946 S.W.2d 833, 834 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) (Held

that where case reversed and remanded, trial court in best position to calculate pre-trial

credits). Under the circumstances of the present case, the appropriate avenue for the

appellant is through the Administrative Procedures Act. See State v. James Alphonso
Vaughn, No. 01C01-9308-CR-00258 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Feb. 24, 1994).

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the state’s motion to affirm the

judgment of the trial court under Rule 20, Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rules,

is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. It appearing that the

petitioner is indigent, costs of these proceedings are taxed to the state.

_____________________________

JOHN H. PEAY, JUDGE

CONCUR:

_____________________________

JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE

_____________________________

THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE