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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6004

DARREL R. FISHER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MAUREEN LYONS REARDON; SARAH RALSTON; JUDGE W. EARL BRITT,

Defendants - Appellees.

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

Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:21-ct-03186-D)

Submitted: August 31, 2023 Decided: October 17, 2023

Before RUSHING and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darrel R. Fisher, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6004 Doc: 14 Filed: 10/17/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Darrel R. Fisher seeks to appeal the district court’s order directing the clerk not to 

accept further filings other than a notice of appeal in Fisher’s previously dismissed civil 

action. The district court received the notice of appeal after the expiration of the appeal 

period. Because Fisher is institutionalized, the notice of appeal is considered filed as of 

the date it was properly delivered to officials at the institution for mailing to the court. Fed. 

R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). The record does not 

conclusively establish when Fisher deposited the notice of appeal in the institution’s 

internal mail system. Accordingly, we remand this case for the limited purpose of allowing 

the district court to make this finding and to determine whether Fisher timely noted an 

appeal under Rule 4(c)(1) and Houston v. Lack. The record, as supplemented, will then be 

returned to this court for further consideration.

REMANDED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6004 Doc: 14 Filed: 10/17/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
# C_2011263EN.01000102.xml

| 7.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 263/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 263/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6210 — VFE Commerce/CDC/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 263/02

On 31 August 2011, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in French and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6210. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6210. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
#### Leonard ODUM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-936.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 6, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, Criminal Division; Vaughn J. Rudnick, Judge.

Appeal quashed.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 Form 10-Q Issuer
  (i)
    
    the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer as of the dates and for
the periods indicated in the Form 10-Q.
 Dated: August 7, 2006
    
    By:
    
    /s/ LARRY L. ENTERLINEName:
    
    Larry L. EnterlineTitle:
    
    Chief Executive OfficerDated: August 7, 2006
    
    By:
    
    /s/ JOSEPH C. TUSA, JR.Name:
    
    Joseph C. Tusa, Jr.Title:
    
    Senior Vice President andChief Financial Officer
 32
#### Donald Eugene TOLLISON, Appellant, v. Theodore F. DYAL and Allstate Insurance Company, a corporation, Appellees.

No. P-379.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 20, 1972.

Rehearing Denied July 18, 1972.

George A. Stelogeannis, of Evans, Stewart, Perry & Stelogeannis, Jacksonville, for appellant.

James E. Cobb, of Mathews, Osborne & Ehrlich, Jacksonville, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal questions the correctness of the summary judgment rendered in favor of appellee in an action brought by appellant to recover damages for injuries sustained by him while riding as a passenger in appellee’s dune buggy when it dropped off a steep cliff or drop in the sand dunes, the existence of which was unknown to the appellee driver.

Since the injuries sustained by appellant occurred while the guest statute was still in effect, the issue before the trial court was whether appellee’s conduct amounted to gross negligence as revealed by the pleadings and depositions considered by the trial court.

A careful examination of the record on appeal conclusively establishes the absence of any genuine triable issue of a material fact, and that appellee was entitled to judg*291ment as a matter of law. The judgment appealed is accordingly affirmed. See Carraway v. Revell, 116 So.23 16 (Fla.1959).

SPECTOR, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and RAWLS, JJ„ concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The
undersigned, David H. Roche, President and Chief Executive Officer of Minn-Dak
Farmers Cooperative, (the Company), does hereby certify that to his
knowledge:

1. The
Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended May
31, 2011 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
and

2. Information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

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

IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be executed this 11th
day of July, 2011.

|    |                                              | 
|--- | -------------------------------------------- | 
|By: | /s/ DAVID H
ROCHE                            | 
|    | Name: David
H Roche                          | 
|    | Title:
President and Chief Executive Officer | 

A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.

24

---
EXHIBIT 32

                                  CERTIFICATION
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Monte B. Tobin,  certify,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that the Quarterly
Report of Mach One  Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange  Act of 1934 and that  information  contained  in such Form 10-Q fairly
presents  in all  material  respects  the  financial  condition  and  results of
operations of Mach One Corporation.

Date: May 22, 2009              By: /s/ Monte B. Tobin
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Monte B. Tobin , Chief Executive Officer

I, Patrick G. Sheridan,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that the Quarterly
Report of Mach One  Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange  Act of 1934 and that  information  contained  in such Form 10-Q fairly
presents  in all  material  respects  the  financial  condition  and  results of
operations of Mach One Corporation.

Date: May 22, 2009              By: /s/ Patrick G. Sheridan
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Patrick G. Sheridan, Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 31.1
       (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 registrant, 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 registrant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 the report based on such evaluation;
and
 (d)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during 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
    Date: November 4, 2009
    /s/ PETER J. UNGAROPeter J. UngaroChief Executive Officer and President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>

THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES INCLUDED IN THIS FORM 10-Q AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-01-1999
<CASH>                                             675
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      544
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,754
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,981
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  16,058
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,365
<BONDS>                                            164
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                           108
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,420
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    16,058
<SALES>                                            225
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   569
<CGS>                                               95
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      530
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 191
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     39
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 39
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        39
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)


</TABLE>
254 La. 139

#### Mrs. Violet Rose FOY, Individually and as Tutrix of her Minor Children, Tommy Ray Foy, Scotty Joe Foy and LeRoy Foy v. ED TAUSSIG, INC., and Travelers Insurance Company and Eddie L. Ellzey and Rufus LaPointe.

No. 49833.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 9, 1969.

In re: Mrs. Violet Rose Foy, etc. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Calcasieu. 220 So.2d 229.

The application is denied. According to the facts of this case as found to be by the Court of Appeal, there appears no error of law in the judgment complained of.

SUMMERS, J., is of the opinion the writ should be granted.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Charles E. Johnson, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Proliance International, 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.    The registrant’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 registrant 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 registrant, 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)    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’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

c)    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’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 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: August 14, 2007 |  |  | /s/ Charles E. Johnson                                  |
|                       |  |  | Charles E. JohnsonPresident and Chief Executive Officer |

----
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Royston P. TURNBAUGH, Petitioner, v. Honorable A. J. HOSEMANN, Jr., Respondent.

No. 43071.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 22, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 268 So.2d 209.

CARLTON, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, and McCAIN, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, J., dissents.
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

December 12, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00564

- CV

IN THE ESTATE OF WADE R. BEDELL, JR., DECEASED,

From the Probate Court No 2, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013

- PC

- 0636 Honorable Tom Rickhoff, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On October 31, 2014, this appeal was abated to the trial court with instructions to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law , and the trial court clerk was ordered to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing the findings and conclusion s by December 1, 2014

. The clerk’s office of this court has verbally notified the trial court clerk that the supplemental clerk’s record is late. The trial court clerk stated that the clerk who prepares supplemental clerk’s records was not available; however, the trial court clerk faxed the findings of fact and conclusions of law to this court on December 12, 2014. It is therefore ORDERED that this appeal is REINSTATED on the docket of this court. It is further ORDE RED that if appellant intends to file an amended brief in view of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the amended brief must be filed no later than thirty days from the date of this order. The clerk of
this court is directed to electronically pro vide a copy of the findings of fact and con clusions of law to both the appellant’s attorney and the appellee’s attorney.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the trial court clerk shall file a supplemental clerk’s record containing the findings of fact and conclus ions of law no later than December 22, 2014. Because “[t]he trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed,” T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 35.3(c), the clerk of the court is directed to serve a copy
of this ord er on the Honorable Tom Rickhoff , Judge of Probate Court No. 2, Bexar County,
Texas

.

_________________________________ Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said
court on this 12th day of December, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle
Clerk of Court
* 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 February 7, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-10594 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE LUIS RIOS-CASIO, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:04-CR-175

-------------------- Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jose Luis RiosCasio raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### George GROSS, Petitioner, v. PLASTILINE, INC., et al., Respondents.

No. 43643.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 6, 1973.

Certiorari denied.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### John David JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 72-1226.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 9, 1973.

Habeas corpus denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000106170
<NAME>WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY
<MULTIPLIER>1,000

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                      DEC-31-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                         PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                             402,037
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                           165,522
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 85,173
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                              600,872
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      1,253,604
<COMMON>                                               26,812
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                             171,691
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                                    38,712
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                        237,375
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  16,500
<PREFERRED>                                            20,000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                                  290,279
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                    132,400
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                                   0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                              0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                               0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                               1,500
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                             8,106
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                       21,866
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                        525,738
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                       1,253,604
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                             414,231
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                                    8,943
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                            353,641
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                            372,490
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                                41,741
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                    (21,246)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                         30,401
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               27,514
<NET-INCOME>                                            2,887
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                             3,298
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                            (411)
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                                    0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                              24,255
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                                  2,057
<EPS-BASIC>                                            0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0.00


</TABLE>
#### ESTATE of Amy B. GALLOP, Deceased. Esther L. LEE, Petitioner, v. ATLANTIC NATIONAL BANK OF WEST PALM BEACH et al., Respondents.

No. 41312.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 20, 1972.

Certiorari dismissed. 248 So.2d 686.