alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
GLD-050 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-2786

___________

SHAWN MARTIN FINCH,

Appellant

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 10-cv-00142)

District Judge: Honorable Kim R. Gibson

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

November 24, 2010

Before: AMBRO, CHAGARES AND NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: December 13, 2010)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Appellant Shawn Martin Finch, proceeding pro se, appeals from the District 

Court’s dismissal of his civil action. For the reasons that follow, we will summarily 

affirm the judgment of the District Court.

Finch initiated the underlying action in the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Pennsylvania on June 3, 2010, by filing a motion for leave to proceed 
2

in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Attached to the motion was a one-page proposed complaint 

naming himself as the defendant and alleging that “unknown identity thieves” had 

violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by stealing money awarded to him 

in other legal actions. 

The Court concluded that Finch had alleged insufficient facts to support his 

constitutional claims. Finch cited three appeals to this Court in support of his claim that 

he had been awarded damages in prior actions. However, all three of those appeals were 

dismissed without any damages being awarded. See C.A. Nos. 10-2262, 10-2263 & 10-

2264. The Court explained that, as there was no indication from the complaint whether 

the alleged “identity thieves” were state actors, and no indication that any damages had 

ever been awarded to Finch, he failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).1

For the reasons given by the District Court, we agree that Finch’s complaint failed 

to allege any actionable violation of his constitutional rights and that any amendment 

would be futile. See Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229, 235 (3d Cir. 2004). Based on the 

foregoing, we conclude that this appeal presents no substantial question and, accordingly, 

will summarily affirm. See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6. 

 

1

The District Court also denied his motion for leave to proceed IFP as moot. As we have 

explained previously, leave to proceed IFP is based on a showing of indigence. See

Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1085 n.5 (3d Cir. 1995). Only after such leave 

has been granted should a complaint be dismissed as frivolous. See id. Rather than 

dismissing the motion for leave to proceed IFP as moot, the District Court should have 

granted it and then dismissed the complaint as frivolous.
INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI: No 

PMN: 09-0436 

Post-Focus Draft Revision 1 8/6/2009 

ENGINEER: Hall \ CPW 

PV (kg/yr): 

Revision Notes / Assessment Overview: 

SUBMITTER: 

USE: 

OTHER USES: 

MSDS: Yes Label: No 

Gen Eqpt: use with adequate ventilation / nitrile or neoprene gloves / safety 

glasses 

Respirator: Use NIOSH/MSHA approved respirator with a combination organic vapor 

and high efficiency filter cartridge if recommended exposure limit is exceeded. 

Use self-contained breathing apparatus for entry into confined space, for other 

poorly ventilated areas and for large spill clean-up sites. 

Health Effects: no known health hazards 

TLV/PEL: none established for PMN 

CRSS : 

Chemical Name: 

S-H20: g/L @ 

VP: torr @ 

MW: 0.00%<500 0.00%<1000 

Physical State and Misc CRSS Info: 

Consumer Use: 

SAT (concerns) (07/01/2009): 

Migration to groundwater: 

PBT rating: P3B1T1 

Health: 1-2 

Eco: 2 

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: 

Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER. 

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS: 

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: 

1) # of workers exposed: >1000? 

2) >100 workers with >10 mg/day inhalation exposure: 

3) (a) >100 workers w/1-10 mg/day inh. exp. & >100 days/yr: 

 (b) Routine Dermal Cont: >250 workers & >100 days/yr: 
INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI: No 

PMN: 09-0436 

Number of Sites/ Location: 

Days/yr: 

Basis: 

Process Description: 

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY 

IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may coincide with 

daily releases from the other sources to the same medium. 

RELEASE TOTAL 

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY 

Inhalation: 

Dermal:
#### STATE ex rel. John Francis WILLE v. Judge G. Walton CAIRE, Fortieth Judicial District Court, Parish of St. John the Baptist.

No. 87-KH-2111.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 13, 1987.

In re Wille, John Francis; applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of St. John the Baptist, 40th Judicial District Court, Div. “A”, No. 85-0225.

Granted. Relator is to be furnished the requested appeal records, checking them out through Mrs. Dora Rabalais of Angola’s Legal Services Office, who will assume responsibility for their return.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6662
WALTER LEE WRIGHT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BISHOP ROBINSON, Secretary, in his individualand official capacity; THOMAS CORCORAN, Warden, in his individual and official capacity;GARY HORNBAKER, Assistant Warden, in his individual and official capacity; JAMES MURPHY,Chief of Security, in his individual and official capacity; KELVIN FURLOW, Sergeant, in his individual and official cap acity; MICHAELTHOMPSON, CO II, in his individual and official capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-2417-AW) Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 22, 1997 Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Walter Lee Wright, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Glenn T. Marrow, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the recordand the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Wright v. Robinson , No. CA-96-2417-AW (D. Md. Apr. 1, 1997). 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.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2163 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2163

    To suspend temporarily the duty on poly(styrene) sulfonic acid.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

Mr. Specter (for himself and Mr. Casey) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To suspend temporarily the duty on poly(styrene) sulfonic acid.

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

SECTION 1. POLY(STYRENE) SULFONIC ACID.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Poly(styrene)       Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        sulfonic acid                                                      31/2011.......
                        (CAS No. 69011-20-
                        7) (provided for
                        in subheading
                        3914.00.60)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Opinion issued December 8, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-16-00831-CV

———————————

DEREK OBIALO, Appellant

V.

EQUABLE ASCENT FINANCIAL, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 11-CCV-045863

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Derek Obialo, has filed a motion to dismiss his appeal. More than 

ten days have elapsed since the filing of the motion and no party has objected to 

dismissal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.3(a). No opinion has issued in this appeal. 
2

Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

42.1(a)(1). We dismiss any other pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Bland.
#### STATE ex rel. Leroy WHITE v. Frank C. BLACKBURN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 86-KH-1716.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 23, 1987.

In re White, Leroy; applying for remedial writs; Parish of Iberia, 16th Judicial District Court, Div. “C”, No. 86-1346.

Denied. Repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(D).
Exhibit 23
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

To the Board
of Directors and Stockholders
Abatix Corp.:

We consent to the
incorporation by reference in registration statement No. 333-95187 on Form S-3
of Abatix Corp. of our report dated March 5, 2004 relating to the consolidated
balance sheets of Abatix Corp. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2003 and
2002, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders
equity and cash flows and the related financial statement schedule for each of
the years in the three year period ended December 31, 2003, which report appears
in the December 31, 2003 annual report on Form 10-K of Abatix Corp.

KMPG LLP

Dallas, Texas
March 29, 2004
Order entered November 6, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01042-CV

TEXAS INSTRUMENTS, INC., Appellant

V.

ALESSANDRO UDELL, Appellee

On Appeal from the 95th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-03191

ORDER

We GRANT appellant’s November 4, 2014 unopposed second motion for an extension 

of time to file a brief. Appellant shall file its brief by December 9, 2014. We caution appellant 

that no further extension of time will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
<PAGE>



[PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LOGO]

PricewaterCoopers LLP
Barnett Center
50 North Laura Street
Suite 3000 Jacksonville FL 33202
Telephone (904) 354-0671
Facsimile (904)366-3678
Direct phone (904) 366-3604
Direct fax (904)366-3678


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-38765), the Registration Statement on Form S-4
(No. 333-38759) and the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-71063) of
Armor Holdings, Inc. of our report dated March 27, 2000 relating to the
consolidated financial statements of Armor Holdings, Inc. which is included
in this Annual Report on Form 10K/A.


                                         /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
                                             PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP



Jacksonville, Florida
April 14, 2000
Exhibit 13(a)

CERTIFICATION OF OLIVIER BOHUON AND JULIE BROWN

906 CERTIFICATION

The certification set
forth below is being submitted in connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2015 (the Report) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Olivier Bohuon, the Chief Executive Officer and
Julie Brown, the Chief Financial Officer of Smith & Nephew plc, each certifies that, to the best of their knowledge:



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



|2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Smith & Nephew plc.
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 4, 2016



By:

/s/ Olivier BohuonName:

Mr Olivier BohuonTitle:

Chief Executive Officer




By:

/s/ Julie BrownName:

Mrs Julie BrownTitle:

Chief Financial Officer
#### STATE ex rel. Robert HOWARD v. CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS, DIV. F.

No. 89-KH-1096.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 25, 1989.

In re Howard, Robert; — Plaintiff(s); applying for writ of mandamus, supervisory *1389and/or remedial writs; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “F”, No. 202-256.

The relator represents that the district court has failed to act timely on a motion to correct an illegal sentence he has filed via certified mail on or about January 3, 1989. If relator’s representation is correct, the district court is ordered to consider and act on the motion.
#### Miles *v.*George, Appellant.

Practice, *Supreme Court*— Charge *to the jury*— Waiver *of errors.*

In an action of assumpsit for board alleged to have been furnished to plaintiff’s mother-in-law, under an express contract, where the issues were entirely of fact, the circumstance that the trial judge unduly commented on the probabilities in favor of the plaintiff was not reversible error, when at the conclusion of his charge to the jury, he inquired of counsel for defendant whether there' was anything in the court’s statement of facts or instructions concerning the law that he objected to specifically and counsel for defendant replied: “Not at this time.”

Argued April 2, 1918.

Appeal, No. 210, Jan. T., 1917, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Philadelphia Co., March T., 1915, No. 4536, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Wilbur P. Miles v. Sarah A. George.

Before Brown, C. J., Potter, Stewart, Moschzisker and Frazer, JJ.

Affirmed.

Assumpsit for boarding, washing and lodging furnished by plaintiff to defendant. Before Barratt,. P. J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

*458Verdict for plaintiff for $2,500 and judgment thereon. Defendant appealed.

*Error assigned*was the charge of the court.

*Bertram D. Rearich,*for appellant.

*A. 8. Ashbridge,*for appellee.

June 3, 1918:

Per Curiam,

The claim of the appellee is for boarding, lodging and washing furnished to his mother-in-law, under an alleged express contract that she would pay him for the same. The issue was one of pure fact, and, while the charge of the learned trial judge is fairly open to the criticism that he unduly commented on the probabilities in favor of the plaintiff, it cannot be regarded as reversible on that account, especially as he stated, at the conclusion of his charge, in addressing counsel for the defendant, “Is there anything in my statement of facts or instruction concerning the law that you object to specifically?” To this reply was made, “not at this time.” Then was the time to have called the court’s attention to what is now complained of on this appeal, and the assignments of error complaining of the charge are dismissed.

Judgment affirmed.
EXHIBIT
      32.1





Certification
      of Principal Executive and Financial Officer


Pursuant
      to


Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March
      31, 2008 (the “Report”) of Highbury Financial Inc. (the “Registrant”), as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, the undersigned
      hereby certify that, to the best of the undersigned’s knowledge:





(1)
      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)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant for the
      period certified.






Date:
      May
      1, 2008




By:
              /s/
                Richard S. FooteRichard S. FootePresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)


By:
                /s/
                  R. Bradley ForthR. Bradley ForthExecutive Vice President, Chief Financial
                    Officer
                  and
                    Secretary(Principal Financial
                  Officer)


The
      foregoing certifications are being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission as part of the accompanying report on Form 10-Q. A signed original
      of
      this statement has been provided to Highbury Financial Inc. and will be retained
      by Highbury Financial Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission or its staff upon request.