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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1873

ANTHONY LEE MCNAIR, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

ROBERT A. EVAN, 

 Defendant - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (4:12-cv-00069-FL) 

Submitted: November 13, 2012 Decided: November 15, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Anthony Lee McNair, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Anthony Lee McNair appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his civil action without prejudice as frivolous and 

as barred by the terms of a pre-filing injunction.* We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. McNair v. Evan, No. 4:12-

cv-00069-FL (E.D.N.C. July 4 & 11, 2012). 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

 * Generally, orders dismissing complaints without prejudice 

are interlocutory and not appealable. Domino Sugar Corp. v. 

Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 

1993) (holding that an order dismissing a complaint without 

prejudice is a final, appealable order only if “no amendment [to 

the complaint] could cure the defects in the . . . case” 

(internal quotation marks omitted)). However, orders dismissing 

actions or cases without prejudice are appealable. Chao v. 

Rivendell Woods, Inc., 415 F.3d 342, 345 (4th Cir. 2005). Where 

a district court’s dismissal is without prejudice, we evaluate 

the particular grounds for dismissal to determine whether the 

appellant could save his action by amending the complaint. Id. 

We find that the district court’s order is an appealable order 

because the defects in McNair’s proposed complaint must be cured 

by something other than an amendment.
EXHIBIT 32

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

<PAGE>


Exhibit 32

                     CERTIFICATION OF DISCLOSURE 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  Quarterly  Report of Jointland  Development,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") I, Kexi Xu,
Acting  Chief  Financial  Officer of the  Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 USC
section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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 the Report fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated: August 10, 2006

/s/ Kexi Xu
---------------------
Kexi Xu,
Acting Chief Financial Officer


This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed  filed by the  Company  for  purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk December 1, 2010

1123 

# Order

December 1, 2010

139725

MARIA C. ABAY, Personal Representative of the Estate of MIRA E. ABAY,Plaintiff/Counter-DefendantAppellant, v SC: 139725 COA: 283624 Oakland CC: 2006-075016-CK DAIMLERCHRYSLER INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff/CrossPlaintiff/Third-Party-Appellee, and

DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION, a/k/a CHRYSLER LLC, Defendant-Appellee, and

JAMES E. TRENT and KELLY ROSE BROOKS, Defendants/Cross-Defendants, and

AUTO CLUB GROUP INSURANCE COMPANY, d/b/a AAA MICHIGAN, and ALVIN JEROME TAYLOR, Third-Parties.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, leave to appeal having been granted and the briefs and oral arguments of the parties having been considered by the Court, we VA CATE our order of March 24, 2010. The applicatio n for leave to appeal the Augu st 13, 2009 j udgment of the Court of Appeals is DENIED, because we ar e no longer persuaded that the questions presented should be revi ewed by this Court.

K ELLY , C.J., and D AVIS , J., would reverse the Court of Appeals decision for the
reasons stated in the Court of Appeals dissenting opinion.

H ATHAWAY , J., would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

HAROLD COST,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 300 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 4 th day of December, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is GRANTED

, LIMITED TO the issue set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all

remaining issues. The issue, as stated by petitioner, is:

(1) Did not the Superior Court panel misapply and expand this Court’s decision

in Commonwealth v. Lyles , 97 A.3d 298 (Pa. 2014), in reversing the grant of suppression by the trial court, because where two officers retain control of a person’s identification in order to run a background check while continuing to question him about his possessions, the interaction is escalated from a mere encounter to an investigative detention?
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

UNDER

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

PACIFIC MERCANTILE BANCORP

Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q

for the quarter ended September 30, 2006

The undersigned, who is the Chief Executive Officer of Pacific Mercantile Bancorp (the Company), hereby certifies that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2006, as filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Quarterly Report), to which this Certification is an Exhibit, fully complies with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange
Act; and (ii) the information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
|---------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 8, 2006 |  | /s/ RAYMOND E. DELLERBA                                                                                                                                                                                                    
|                       |  | Raymond E. Dellerba, 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.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

May 30, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130613 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

AMOS WELLS,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 130613 

 COA: 257610 

Bay CC: 02-004063-CL

COUNTY OF BAY,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 19, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s0522 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

May 30, 2006 

Clerk
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

BROADSOFT INC., Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

CALLWAVE COMMUNICATIONS LLC, Defendant

- Appellant

______________________

2018

- 1124

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in No. 1:13

- cv

- 00711

- RGA, Judge Richard G. Andrews.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

J ONATHAN G ARWOOD G RAVES , Cooley LLP, Reston, VA, argued for plaintiff

- appellee.

W ILLIAM D. B ELANGER , Pepper Hamilton LLP, Boston, MA, argued for defendant

- appellant. Also represented by G REGORY S COTT B ISHOP , C HARLES F OSTER K OCH , Redwood City, CA.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it isO RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (N EWMAN , L OURIE , and S TOLL , Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed

. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

October 16, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court
#### Travis Turner SMITH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28767.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 16, 1957.

*684No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.

Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., George P. Blackburn and A. D. Bowie, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, .Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, 3 days in jail and a fine of $125.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular, and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
UNITED TACONITE FLOW SHEET No. 3: Rev 2 

ETCO CONCENTRATOR Lines 1 & 2 FINE ~1E SURGE ' 2000 HP 

SPIRAL TAILS ~COBBER SEPARATOR~ MAGNETIC 'A' MILL LINE ROD MILL 'B' MILL LINE 

CLASSIFIER 

CONC FROM EXCO O'FL0\,1 FINE SCREENS DE'w' ATE RING BALL MILL CSEE SHEET 4) COARSE SEPARATION TAILS 2000 HP 

TAILS ' 1ROUGHER MAGNETIC SEPARATOR! 

I I CYCLONES~ I CDNC 

r- TAILINGS I U'FLD\,1 t U'FLD\,1 HYDRDSEPARATDR I I CYCLONES D'FLD\,1 

I D'FL0\,1 H2 U'FL0\,1 0 !REGRIND BALL MILL I 

• I 

D'FL0\,1 I I CONCENTRATE I CONC 

I IHYDROSEPARATORI LINE 1 I MAGNETIC SEPARATORS fcoNc 

I O'SIZE CDNC LINE 2 

TAILS. 

TAILS lcALTERNAT~ I L _ _ _ _ FINE SCREENS D'SIZE REGRIND IHYDRDSEPARATDRI THICKENER 

U'SIZE 

I D'FL0\,1 

-----1 FINISHER MAGNETIC SEPARATOR : 

U'FLD\,1 TO 300' THICKENER 

1- 300 FT <~ THICKENER I D'SIZE 

ALTERNATE f CDNC DERRICK SCREENS U'FLD\,1 

__ U'S_l?:~ _____ j I CONCENTRATE SUMP 

--- TO REGRIND 

TAILINGS --- CYCLONES DR 

D'FLD\,1 ------~ ALTERNATE BALL MILL POND IPELLET PLANT THICKENER I TO EXCO LINE #3 

D'FL0\,1 TO FINAL CONCENTRATE SUMP 

PROCESS \,lATER U'FLD\,1 TO FILTERS CSEE SHEET 4)
**Exhibit
      23**








**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED**


**PUBLIC
      ACCOUNTING FIRM**








We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
      Form
      S-8 (No. 33-57038) previously filed by SpectraScience, Inc. of our report,
      which
      contains an explanatory paragraph relating to the Company’s ability to continue
      as a going concern dated March 7, 2007, on the financial statements of
      SpectraScience, Inc. as of December 31, 2006 and 2005, and for the years then
      ended and for the period from August 2, 2004 (inception of Successor Company)
      to
      December 31, 2006, which report appears in this annual report on Form 10-KSB
      for
      the year ended December 31, 2006.











/s/
      J.H.
      Cohn LLP





San
      Diego, California


March
      27,
      2007
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed March 19, 2019.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-18-01385-CV

SCOTT FIELDS, Appellant

V.

CITY OF SHERMAN, TEXAS, DAVID PLYLER, ZACH FLORES, AND 

ALEX SHIVERS, Appellees

On Appeal from the 59th Judicial District Court

Grayson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CV-18-1686

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Brown, Schenck, and Pedersen, III

Opinion by Justice Schenck

This is an appeal from the denial of a temporary restraining order. Because an order 

denying a motion for a temporary restraining order is not appealable, we directed appellant to file 

a letter brief addressing the Court’s jurisdiction. See Nikolouzos v. St. Luke’s Episcopal Hosp., 

162 S.W.3d 678, 680-81 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (en banc) (noting that 

appellate courts have jurisdiction to consider immediate appeals of interlocutory orders that do not 

dispose of all issues and parties only if allowed by statute and no statute authorizes appeal from 

denial of temporary restraining order). Appellant complied, but nothing in his letter demonstrates 
–2–

we have jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a); 

Nikolouzos, 162 S.W.3d at 681.

181385F.P05

/David J. Schenck/

DAVID J. SCHENCK

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

SCOTT FIELDS, Appellant

No. 05-18-01385-CV V.

CITY OF SHERMAN, TEXAS, DAVID 

PLYLER, ZACH FLORES, AND ALEX 

SHIVERS, Appellees

On Appeal from the 59th Judicial District 

Court, Grayson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CV-18-1686.

Opinion delivered by Justice Schenck, 

Justices Brown and Pedersen, III 

participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

Judgment entered this 19th day of March 2019.
#### Emilio RANGEL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27867.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 30, 1955.

No appearance for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted as a second offender for a violation of the liquor law in Lubbock County, and his punishment was assessed at a fine of $400 and confinement in the county jail for' a period of 30 days.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
10

{00069483.1  /  0631-001}
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  Certification
  Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                       (18 U.S.C. Section 1350(a) and (b))


I,  Timothy  Rosen,  Chairman  of  the  Board  and  Chief  Executive  Officer of
VerticalBuyer,  Inc.  (the  "Company")  certify  that:

(1)  the  quarterly  report  on  Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended
September 30, 2003 (the "Quarterly Report") fully complies with the requirements
of  section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m
or  78o(d));  and

(2)  the  information  contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.


July  22,  2004

                                   /s/ Timothy  Rosen
                                   -------------------------------
                                   Timothy  Rosen
                                   Chairman  of  the  Board
                                   and  Chief  Executive  Officer



I,  Leslie  Kent, Chief Financial Officer of VerticalBuyer, Inc. (the "Company")
certify  that:

(1)  the  quarterly  report  on  Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended
September 30, 2003 (the "Quarterly Report") fully complies with the requirements
of  section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m
or  78o(d));  and

(2)  the  information  contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.


Date:  July  22,  2004

                                   /s/ Leslie  Kent
                                   -------------------------------
                                   Leslie  Kent
                                   Chief  Financial  Officer


                                       10
<PAGE>
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2011 - 1171 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2011 -NM - 101 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**
#### Arthur BLANKENSHIP, Appellant, v. UNITED FUEL GAS COMPANY et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Dec. 13, 1957.

C. F. See, Jr., M. J. See, Louisa, for appellant.

Eldred E. Adams, Louisa, C. E. Goodwin, Charleston, W. Va., for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Motion for an appeal from a judgment of the Lawrence Circuit Court, Hon. W. D. Sparks, Judge, dissolving a temporary restraining order issued by the clerk of that court enjoining appellee from removing its equipment valued at $1,250 from a well from which appellant is using gas for domestic purposes, and dismissing appellant’s complaint.

To reverse the judgment appellant urges it would be inequitable to him to permit appellee to remove this equipment and it would not benefit appellee as he is willing to pay appellee the value of the equipment.

The lease contract gives appellee the right to remove this equipment and as appellant’s action is based on the contract, it is patent the judgment of the trial court is correct.

Appellee is not acting maliciously in seeking to remove its equipment but is insisting on its right under the lease contract to do so in order that it may plug the well (which no longer produces gas in merchantable quantities), so as to protect its other wells on the lease from being flooded with salt water. Appellee admits appellant may connect his house to another gas well on the lease but he refused to do so on account of the expense incident to making this connection.

The motion for appeal is overruled and the judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1 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 Quarterly Report of Bancorp Rhode Island, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ending June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned President and Chief Executive Officer hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (a) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; and (b) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company. Dated this 7th day of August, 2009. /s/ Merrill W. Sherman
Merrill W. Sherman
President and
Chief Executive Officer A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Bancorp Rhode Island, Inc. and will be retained by Bancorp Rhode Island, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.  3