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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7113

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ANTHONY DAWSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (8:04-cr-0836; 8:06-cv-1295-GRA)

Submitted: October 31, 2006 Decided: December 11, 2006

Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Dawson, Appellant Pro Se. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant

United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Dawson seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dawson has not

made the requisite showing. 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 the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit
No. 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 Annual Report of Signet International Holdings, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ernesto
W. Letiziano, Chief Executive and Financial Officer of the Company, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (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.
 
  Date:
      April 7, 2009
                By:  /s/  Ernesto W.
    LetizianoErnesto
      W. LetizianoChief
      Executive andChief
      Financial Officer
  
 A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Signet International Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Signet
International Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
#### MATHIS v. STATE.

No. 26844.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 24, 1954.

*84No attorney on appeal for, appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the-State.

MORRISON, Judged

The offense, is aggravated assault with a motor'vehicle; the punishment, 30dáys in jail and a'fine of $300.

.-The record is before us without a statement of facts' or bills of. exception..

All :the proceedings appearing regular and nothing being presented, for our -review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Exhibit 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements
No. 333-139645 and 333-122812 on Form S-3, and Registration Statement No. 333-139128 on Form S-8 of Jamba, Inc. (formerly Services Acquisition Corp. International) of our report dated April 2, 2007, relating to the consolidated
financial statements of Jamba Juice Company and subsidiary (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the adoption of a new accounting standard) as of November 28, 2006, June 27,
2006 and June 28, 2005 and for the period from June 28, 2006 to November 28, 2006 and for each of the three fiscal years in the period ended June 27, 2006, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Jamba, Inc. for the
fiscal year ended January 9, 2007.



|                         
|-------------------------
|/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
|                         
|San Francisco, California
|April 2, 2007
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-132065 on Form S-8of our reports dated February 26, 2010, relating to the consolidated financialstatements and financial statement schedule of Rockwood Holdings, Inc. andsubsidiaries, and on the effectiveness of Rockwood Holdings, Inc.’sinternal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-Kof Rockwood Holdings, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2009.

 

 
| /s/ Deloitte &  Touche LLP |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|
| Parsippany, New Jersey         |   |
| February 26, 2010         |   |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7999

AMOS HENRY JORDAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States of America, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-126-2-20AJ) Submitted: June 9, 2005 Decided: June 14, 2005 Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Amos Henry Jordan, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Amos Henry Jordan, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate j udge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. SeeJordan v. Ashcroft , CA-04-126-2-20AJ (D.S.C., filed Oct. 29, 2004; entered Nov. 1, 2004). 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
THE PIONEER GROUP, INC.
           60 State Street
           Boston, MA 02109-1820
           617-742-7825



[Pioneer logo]


                                                 May 3, 2000

VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION

Securities and Exchange Commission
Judiciary Plaza
450 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC  20549

Re:  Pioneer Fund (the "Fund")
     (File Nos. 2-25980 and 811-07613)
     CIK No. 0000078713

Ladies and Gentlemen:

     Pursuant to Rule 497(j) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, I
certify that the forms of prospectus and statement of additional information
that would have been filed under paragraph (c) of Rule 497 do not differ from
those contained in Post-Effective Amendment No. 69 to the Fund's registration
statement on Form N-1A filed electronically (Accession No. 0001016964-99-000096)
on April 28, 2000.

     If you have any questions about this certification, please contact
me at (617) 517-8909 (collect).

                                                 Very truly yours,

                                                 /s/Mark Pietkiewicz

                                                 Mark Pietkiewicz
                                                 Senior Legal Product Manager

cc:  Ms. Victoria J. Caviasca
     Mr. Joseph P. Barri
     Mr. David C. Phelan
     Ms. Michelle Rhee
July 15, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

O.C.T.G., L.L.P AND SOJOURN PARTNERS, L.L.C., Appellants

NO. 14-13-00981-CV V.

LAGUNA TUBULAR PRODUCTS CORPORATION AND LTP REAL 

ESTATE, LLC F/K/A LTP REAL ESTATE, INC., Appellees

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the trial court’s order signed October 15, 2013 in 

favor of appellees, Laguna Tubular Products Corporation and LTP Real Estate, 

LLC f/k/a LTP Real Estate, Inc., was heard on the transcript of the record. We 

have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the trial 

court’s order AFFIRMED.

We order appellants O.C.T.G., L.L.P and Sojourn Partners, L.L.C., jointly 

and severally, to pay all costs incurred in this appeal. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
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 this Quarterly Report
of IBOD Imaging, Inc. (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2012, as filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Michael Jorgensen, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify
to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:



| | (1) | Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2012, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period
ended June 30, 2012, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |     |                                                        | 
|--------------------- | --- | ------------------------------------------------------ | 
|Date: August 14, 2012 | By: | /s/ Michael Jorgensen                                  | 
|                      |     | Michael Jorgensen                                      | 
|                      |     | Principal Executive Officer
        IBOD Imaging, Inc. | 
|                      |     |                                                        |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE DECEMBER 1, 1995 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-01-1995
<CASH>                                           17299
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    17920
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      11843
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 49014
<PP&E>                                          107473
<DEPRECIATION>                                   42707
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  115279
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            19276
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                          2212
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    115279
<SALES>                                          26097
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 26097
<CGS>                                            20410
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     4464
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 383
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1223
<INCOME-TAX>                                       365
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                858
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       858
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .12
        

</TABLE>
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-20172 Conference Calendar

LELAND BRADLEY FOUSE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus WAYNE SCOTT, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; EARL FOX, Defendant-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-94-CV-4216

- - - - - - - - - - April 10, 1998 Before JOLLY, JONES, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Appellant Leland Bradley Fouse, TDCJ-ID # 629726, appeals the district court’s judgment in favor of the defendants in his civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He argues that the district court erroneously denied his motion to continue his trial. An appellant, even one pro se , who wishes to challenge findings or conclusions that are based on proceedings at a hearing has the responsibility to order a transcript. Fed. R.No. 97-20172 -2- App. P. 10(b); Powell v. Estelle , 959 F.2d 22, 26 (5th Cir. 1992). This court does not consider the merits of an issue when an appellant fails in that responsibility. Powell , 959 F.2d at 26. Fouse has not provided a trial transcript. We thus decline to consider his contentions on appeal. See Alizadeh v. Safeway Stores, Inc. , 910 F.2d 234, 237 (5th Cir. 1990). Because there is no issue of arguable merit, the appeal is frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Therefore, it is DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
Filed: December 4, 1997

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-2043

(CA-97-1821-JFM)

John Wingert,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

United States Government,

Defendant - Appellee.

ORDER

The Court amends its opinion filed November 19, 1997, as

follows:

On page 2, first paragraph, line 3 -- the word "allged" is

corrected to read "alleged."

For the Court - By Direction

/s/ Patricia S. Connor

Clerk
2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-2043

JOHN WINGERT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.

(CA-97-1821-JFM)

Submitted: November 6, 1997 Decided: November 19, 1997

Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Wingert, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (West Supp. 1997). Appellant alleged the existence of a wide-ranging conspiracy between the Ku Klux Klan and the

United States Government to control him and cause him harm. We have

reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no

abuse of discretion. Wingert v. United States Gov't, No. CA-97-

1821-JFM (D. Md. June 11, 1997). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal

as frivolous. 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.

DISMISSED
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 16, 2021

No. 04-21-00142-CR

IN RE GABRIEL R. GARCIA,

From the 406th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2007CRS000739D4

Honorable Oscar J. Hale, Jr., Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice 

Irene Rios, Justice 

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice 

 Relator has filed a petition seeking a writ of mandamus. This court believes a serious 

question concerning the mandamus relief sought requires further consideration. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 52.8(b). However, the petition fails to comply with various provisions of the Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedures. 

 We therefore ORDER relator to file an amended petition that contains all contents 

required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3, and to serve the amended filing on both the 

respondent trial judge and the State. Relator’s amended petition is due no later than 15 days after 

the date of this order.

The respondent and the real party in interest may file a response to the petition in this 

court no later than 15 days after relator’s amended petition is filed. Any such response must 

conform to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.4.

It is so ORDERED on this 16th day of April, 2021.

PER CURIAM 

 ATTESTED TO: ______________________________

 MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.1

CERTIFICATE 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 on Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2002 of XO Communications, Inc. (the Company), as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Daniel F. Akerson, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. |  | The 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 Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

Date: November 13, 2002

/s/ Daniel F. AkersonDaniel F. AkersonChairman and Chief Executive Officer
# ---------------------------------e----------··-·--·-------------------- Rrglnn~I.\irliao:: ~('blln.. Ih,·c I.nlle-ref \,.\ :\1 I.O~l
|                                                             
|-------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                             
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)               
|View History: Annual                                         
|View History: Annual                                         
|View History:                                                
|                                                             
|No chart available.                                          
|No chart available.                                          
|                                                             
|                                                             
|Indiana Natural Gas Number of Oil Wells  (Number of Elements)
|                                                             

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        | NA     | NA     | NA     | NA     | NA     |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
#### Phillip Lee WASHUM, Appellant, v. John N. KONRAD et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Feb. 4, 1955.

Robert O. Lukowsky, guardian ad litem, Covington, for appellant.

Earl Rodney King and Charles E. Dunn, Covington, for appellees.

CAMMACK, Justice.

The appellees, John N. Konrad and Della Mae Konrad, brought suit in the Kenton Circuit Court for a declaratory judgment to determine the rights of Phillip Lee Washum, an infant, in a house and lot which they had purchased from Washum’s mother. Phillip’s rights in the property, if any, arise out of a deed from his mother, Frances M. Washum, to his father, Virgil A. Washum, dated September 27, 1949. In this deed the following clause appears:

> “There is reserved from this conveyance the right of Phillip Lee Wash-um, son of the grantor and grantee herein, to have a home in said property until he, Phillip Lee Washum, becomes twenty-one (21) years of age.”

The granting and the habendum clauses in the deed refer to the “reservation” to Phillip. The granting clause provides:

> “ * * * bargain, sell and convey to the said Virgil A. Washum, his heirs and assigns forever, excepting the reservation hereinafter set forth, * * *»

The habendum clause reads:

> “ * * * To have and to hold the same to the said Virgil A. Washum, his heirs and assigns forever, subject to the above reservation, * * * ”

On April 30, 1950, Phillip’s father re-conveyed the property to his mother. No reference was made to the “reservation.” Mrs. Washum conveyed the property to the appellees on September 27, 1950, by a general warranty deed.

The trial court held that Phillip took no interest in the property by virtue of the deed in question.

This Court has held consistently that an exception or reservation in a conveyance of real estate must be in favor of the grantor and that an exception or reservation in favor of a stranger to the instrument gives or conveys nothing to him. Sword v. Sword, Ky., 252 S.W.2d 869; *428Slone v. Kentucky West Virginia Gas Co., 289 Ky. 623, 159 S.W.2d 993; Allen v. Henson, 186 Ky. 201, 217 S.W. 120. Consequently, Phillip, being a stranger to the instrument, received nothing by virtue of the “reservation.”

Counsel for Phillip argues that Mrs. Washum “excepted” the disputed interest from the conveyance for herself and that it remained her property right. Even if it be conceded that this is correct (which it is not), the subsequent acquisition of the property by her and her conveyance to the appellees by a general warranty deed would be sufficient to preclude her from claiming any interest in the property. Fordson Coal Co. v. Potter’s Ex’rs, 237 Ky. 311, 35 S.W.2d 298; Cooper v. Cooper, 212 Ky. 454, 279 S.W. 615.

Judgment affirmed.