alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 8, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-31216 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. SUNDAY ADEOSHUN, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

No. 2:01-CR-13-2

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Sunday Adeoshun, a federal prisoner, moves to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal. The district court denied Adeoshun’s motion to appeal IFP and certified that the appeal was not taken in good faith. By moving for IFPNo. 06-31216

2 status, Adeoshun is challenging that certification. SeeBaugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Adeoshun’s motion addresses only his asserted indigent status and does not briefany argument regarding the district court’s determination that his appeal was not taken in good faith. Failure to identify an error in the district court’s analysis is the same as if the appellant had not appealed thejudgment. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Although pro se briefs are liberally construed, even pro se litigants must brief arguments to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Adeoshun has not shown that the district court’s determination that his appeal is not taken in good faith is incorrect. The instant appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. Accordingly, the request for IFP status is denied, and the appeal is dismissed. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5

TH C IR
. R. 42.2. We caution Adeoshun that the filing of frivolous pleadings of any kind may result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in this court and any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction. IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
STN Easy: Display Page Page 1 of 2
#### Richard Carter NEWMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-337.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 26, 1970.

Appeal from Criminal Court of Record, Palm Beach County; Russell H. McIntosh, Judge.

Appeal quashed.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 547 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 547

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                    September 27, 1994.
    Resolved, That all points of order against the conference report to 
accompany the bill (H.R. 4602) making appropriations for the Department of the 
Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and 
for other purposes, and against its consideration are waived.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
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, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during
the period in which this report is being prepared;b.
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or
caused such internal control over financial reporting to be
designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance
regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;c.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls
and procedures 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; andd.
    
    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;
  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; andb.
    
    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.
  /s/ John GrobJohn GrobPresident
Principal Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 570 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 570

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                       October 6, 1994.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for further consideration 
of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 416) providing limited authorization for the 
participation of United States Armed Forces in the multinational force in Haiti 
and providing for the prompt withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from 
Haiti. All time for general debate under the terms of any previous order of the 
House shall be considered as expired. After further general debate, which shall 
be confined to the joint resolution and the amendments made in order by this 
resolution and shall not exceed two hours equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the 
joint resolution shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule 
and shall be considered as read. The amendments printed in part 1 of the report 
of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as 
adopted in the House and the Committee of the Whole. No further amendment shall 
be in order in the House or in the Committee of the Whole except those printed 
in part 2 of the report of the Committee on Rules. Each further amendment may be 
offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment except as specified in 
the report. All points of order against the amendments printed in the report are 
waived. If more than one of the amendments printed in part 2 of the report is 
adopted, only the last to be adopted shall be considered as finally adopted and 
reported to the House. At the conclusion of consideration of the joint 
resolution for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the joint 
resolution to the House with such amendment as may have been finally adopted. 
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and 
any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one 
motion to recommit with or without instructions.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-2079

DAVE HENRI R. MEERVIS,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: June 30, 2021 Decided: August 11, 2021

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dave Henri R. Meervis, Petitioner Pro Se. Karen L. Melnik, Office of Immigration 

Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for 

Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Dave Henri R. Meervis, a native and citizen of Belgium, has filed a pro se petition 

for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion the 

immigration judge’s written decision denying Meervis’ application for asylum and 

ordering Meervis removed to Belgium. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues 

raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (directing appealing parties to present 

specific arguments, issues, and supporting facts in an informal brief and observing that this 

court “limit[s] its review to the issues raised in the informal brief”). Affording Meervis’ 

pro se informal brief a liberal construction, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) 

(instructing courts to liberally construe pro se documents), we conclude that Meervis has 

failed to challenge the immigration judge’s dispositive rationale, which became the final 

agency determination, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4) (2021). We therefore hold that Meervis 

has forfeited appellate review of the Board’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 

177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit 

rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We deny as unnecessary the Attorney 

General’s motion to remand and deny as moot Meervis’ motion for injunctive relief

pending 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 

decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 134 (Thursday, July 12, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 32287]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14927]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Docket ID: DOD-2018-OS-0042]


Notice of Availability for an Environmental Assessment Addressing 
Upgrade of the Main Gate Access Control Point at Defense Distribution 
Depot, San Joaquin, California, and Surrounding Area

AGENCY: Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice of availability (NOA).

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

SUMMARY: DLA announces the availability of an Environmental Assessment 
(EA) documenting the potential environmental effects associated with 
the proposed action to upgrade the main gate access control point at 
Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California, and surrounding 
area.

DATES: The public comment period will end on August 13, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by DOD-2018-OS-0042, to 
one of the following:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments.
    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management 
Officer, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and 
Advisory Committee Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Mailbox #24, Suite 
08D09, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ira Silverberg at 571-767-0705 during 
normal business hours Monday through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 
p.m. (EDT) or by email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d1b8a3b0ffa2b8bda7b4a3b3b4a3b691b5bdb0ffbcb8bd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b8d1cad996cbd1d4ceddcadaddcadff8dcd4d996d5d1d4">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EA has been prepared as required under 
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and DLA Regulation 
1000.22, Environmental Considerations in Defense Logistics Agency 
Actions.
    The EA posted to the docket provides additional information about 
the proposed action.
    The EA is available in hardcopy at the Tracy Branch Library, 20 
East Eaton Avenue, Tracy, CA 95376.

    Dated: July 9, 2018.
Shelly E. Finke,
Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2018-14927 Filed 7-11-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 5001-06-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 00-1009.

#### McDonald *v.*Griffin et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
258 La. 556

#### John C. BROWN v. CITY OF LAKE CHARLES.

No. 51359.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 26, 1971.

In re: John C. Brown applying for writ of certiorari and review.

Application denied. On the facts found by the district court we cannot say the result is incorrect.

SUMMERS, J., is of the opinion the writs should be granted.
CERTIFICATION

I, Larry F. Vance, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Earth
Search Sciences, Inc., certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Earth Search
Sciences, Inc.;

     2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 Annual
report;

     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

     4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

          (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

          (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

          (c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

     5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent function):

          (a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

          (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls; and

     6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls
or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent
to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: July 12, 2005
                               ----------------------------------
                               Larry F Vance
                               Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
                               (Principal Executive Officer)
#### In re Leland W. ZIMMERMAN v. STATE. Ex parte Leland W. Zimmerman.

SC 608.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Dec. 13, 1973.

Robert W. Gwin, Jr., Birmingham, for petitioner.

No brief for the State.

FAULKNER, Justice.

Petition of Leland W. Zimmerman for Certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that Court in Zimmerman v. State, 51 Ala.App. 519, 287 So.2d 230.

Writ denied.

MERRILL, HARWOOD, MADDOX and JONES, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1

EXHIBIT 11 - STATEMENTS RE:  COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS


                           COMMUNITY BANCSHARES, INC.
                   COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE

The following tabulation presents the calculation of primary and fully diluted
earnings per common share for the years ended December 31, 1996, 1995 and 1994.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                    
                                                                                    
            

                                                                           1996          1995          1994
                                                                       ------------  ------------  ------------
                                     
<S>                                                                    <C>           <C>           <C>
Reported net income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    $  3,458,986  $  2,704,798  $  2,687,954
                                                                       ============  ============  ============

Earnings on common shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    $  3,458,986  $  2,704,798  $  2,687,954
                                                                       ============  ============  ============

Weighted average common shares outstanding  . . . . . . . . . . . .       1,929,280     1,667,945     1,681,892
                                                                       ============  ============  ============

Earnings per common share - primary and fully diluted
  Income from continuing operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    $       1.79  $       1.62  $       1.60
                                                                       ============  ============  ============

  Net income  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    $       1.79  $       1.62  $       1.60
                                                                       ============  ============  ============
</TABLE>

                                     76
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Richard E. Gaetz, certify that: 

1.    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Vitran Corporation Inc.; 

2.    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary 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, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4.    Theregistrant’s other certifying officer 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: 

a)    Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

b)    Designed such internal control overfinancial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements forexternal purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; 

c)    Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures 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

d)    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5.    The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the Audit Committee of the registrant’s Board of Directors: 

a)    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’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 registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: May 2, 2011
Order entered October 3, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00374-CV

LOCAL PUBLIC HOUSE, LLC, Appellant 

V. 

CARLY PAGE SHOCKEY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 416-05120-2019

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s September 28, 2022 second unopposed motion 

to extend time to file its brief. We GRANT the motion and extend the deadline to 

November 14, 2022. We caution appellant that further extension requests will be 

disfavored. 

/s/ ROBERT BURNS 

CHIEF JUSTICE