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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-8189

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JAMES RODNEY SMITH, a/k/a Lump,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Fayetteville. Malcolm J. Howard, 

Senior District Judge. (3:94-cr-00065-H-6)

Submitted: June 1, 2010 Decided: June 7, 2010

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Rodney Smith, Appellant Pro Se. John Howarth Bennett, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

James Rodney Smith appeals from the district court’s 

order denying his motions for clarification of the judgment, 

clarification of his sentence, and to reduce his sentence. We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. United States v. Smith, No. 3:94-cr-00065-H-6 (E.D.N.C. 

Aug. 20, 2009). 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
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC,

 Plaintiff 

-vMICROSOFT CORPORATION, 

 Defendant 

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

W-20-CV-00455-ADA 

W-20-CV-00467-ADA 

W-20-CV-00459-ADA 

W-20-CV-00463-ADA 

ORDER TO PAY TECHNICAL ADVISOR 

The Court previously appointed Dr. Joshua J. Yi to serve as a technical advisor on this 

case. The Court has reviewed Dr. Yi’s invoice for services through March 11, 2021 and finds the 

requested amount ($18,075.00) to be reasonable and necessary. As such, the Court ORDERS

payment to be promptly made as follows: 

Plaintiffs: $9,037.50 

Defendant: $9,037.50 

Dr. Yi will separately provide deposit instructions. 

SIGNED this 17th day of March, 2021. 

ALAN D ALBRIGHT 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 6:20-cv-00455-ADA Document 57 Filed 03/17/21 Page 1 of 1
Brief Stricken and Order filed October 10, 2019

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 19

- 00206

- CV

____________ LOLITA TOLIVER , Appellant

V.

556 LINDA VISTA , Appellee

On Appeal from Co unty Civil C our t at Law No

. 4

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1117243



### ORDER
On September 25, 2019 , appellant filed a brief that is not in compliance with
the Texas Rule s of Appellate Procedure. The brief fails to comply with subsections a, b, c, d, e, g, h, i , j, and k of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1. Accordingly, we order appellant’s brief filed September 25, 2019 stricken. Appellant is ordered to file a brief that complies with the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure on or before November 12, 2019 . If appellan t files another brief that does2

not comply with Rule 38, the Court may strike the brief, prohibit appellant from filing another, and proceed as if appellant had failed to file a brief. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.9(a).
If appellant fails to timely file a bri ef in accordance with Rule 38, the appeal

may be dismissed for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1).

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Christopher, Spain, and Poissant (Justice Christopher dissents and would not strike the brief.)
#### Ex parte HOLDEM.

No. A-702.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Nov. 21, 1945.

*486Milton K. Norton and J. E. McLemore, Jr., bo.th of Dallas, for relator.

No appearence by any respondent.

HICKMAN, Justice.

This is an original habeas corpus proceeding in this court in which Harold Holden seeks release from an order of a special judge of one of the district courts of Dallas County adjudging him to be in contempt of that court. The punishment assessed was a fine of $100 and three days in jail, the maximum allowed by law. Art. 1911, R.S.1925. By order of this court heretofore entered relator was released from the custody of the Sheriff of Dallas County pending a hearing of this proceeding by this court on its merits.

The contempt order was based upon a finding that relator violated a previous order of ithe court requiring him to pay $35 per week into the registry of the court for the support and maintenance of his wife during the pendency of an action for divorce instituted by her against him. Relator’s verified petition in this *court is not*controverted. One of the grounds upon which he attacks ,the legality of the contempt order is that upon the hearing he was denied .the right to testify as to why he had not complied with .the order requiring him to pay alimony. In support of this ground he has caused a statement of facts in the contempt hearing to be filed here and it discloses 'that while relator was on the witness stand for the purpose of testifying in his own defense his attorney asked him for what reason he had not paid the $35 per week. To this inquiry counsel for Mrs. Holden objected on the ground that it was immaterial and irrelevant why he had not paid it. The objection was sustained and relator was denied the right to state why he had not complied with the court’s order.

There is thus presented for decision the question of whether or not due process has been accorded a party charged with contempt committed outside the presence of the court by disobedience of a previous order of the court when he has been denied the right to testify as a witness at the contempt hearing, in defense .of the charge or mitigation of the punishment, concerning the reason why he disobeyed the order. That is not a difficult question. It was held in Ex parte Ratliff, 117 Tex. 325, 3 S.W.2d 406, 408, 57 A.L.R. 541, that due process, as guaranteed by Amendment 5 of the United States Constitution, and Art. 1, Sec. 19, of the Texas Constitution, Vernon’s Ann. St., “* * * requires that one charged with contempt be accorded the opportunity not only to establish a complete defense, but to offer evidence and argument in extenuation of his offense and in mitigation .of the penalty.” That principle governs this case. To deny an accused the right to inform the court why he had not complied with its order is, in effect, to deny him a trial. That is not due process.

Other grounds are relied on by relator, but since full relief must be granted him on the ground just discussed, no reason is perceived for discussing other grounds.

The relator is discharged.
Exhibit 99.1



REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





Board of Directors

The Standard Register Company

Dayton, Ohio



We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of The Standard Register Company and subsidiaries as of July 3, 2005 and the related consolidated statements of income and comprehensive income, and cash flows for the thirteen and twenty-six week periods ended July 3, 2005 and June 27, 2004.  These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.



We conducted our reviews in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States).  A review of interim financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.



Based upon our reviews, we are not aware of any material modifications that should be made to the accompanying consolidated financial statements referred to above for them to be in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.



We have previously audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheet of The Standard Register Company and subsidiaries as of January 2, 2005 and the related consolidated statements of income and comprehensive income, shareholders equity, and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein); and in our report dated March 10, 2005, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those financial statements.  In our opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of January 2, 2005 is fairly stated, in all material respects.





/S/BATTELLE & BATTELLE LLP







Dayton, Ohio

July 27, 2005
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, *v.*Max Desatnick, Defendant.

County Court, Queens County,

November 21, 1957.

*110
      *Max Desatnick,*defendant in person.

*Frank D. O’Connor, District Attorney (Morton Greenspan*of counsel), for plaintiff.

James P. McG-rattan, J.

This is a motion by the defendant to vacate his sentence of June 6, 1956 and to be resentenced under this indictment.

The defendant in his moving papers contends that the sentence of June 6, 1956 is illegal and void in law inasmuch as the sentencing Judge after sentencing the defendant to Sing Sing Prison under an indeterminate sentence, the maximum of such imprisonment to be two years and the minimum one year thereof, or directed that there be “ time off for good behavior ”.

The defendant now complains that the Parole Board has refused to observe this direction of the court, inasmuch as he was advised by the Parole Board that he would have to serve his maximum time of two years.

The recommendation of the court is not binding upon the Parole Commission as it is their duty to determine when the prisoner is sufficiently rehabilitated or reformed to be fit for return to society (Correction Law, § 204). The recommendation of the court did not have the effect of invalidating a sentence which the court had jurisdiction to impose. The Parole Commission is under no obligation to follow the court’s recommendation. *(People*v. *Tower,*308 N. Y. 123, 125.)

Defendant’s motion is denied. Order entered accordingly.
Exhibit 99.1



                          CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES, INC.

                      Monthly Servicer's Certificates Audit
                        (CarMax Auto Owner Trust 2002-1)

                                   May 9, 2003





                         Independent Accountants' Report




The Board of Directors
CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc.:


We have examined management's assertion about CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc.'s
(CarMax) compliance, as Servicer, with section 3.9 of the Sale and Servicing
Agreement, dated June 1, 2002 (the Agreement), between CarMax, as Seller and
Servicer, Pooled Auto Securities Shelf, LLC and CarMax Auto Owner Trust 2002-1,
for the period from June 1, 2002 to February 28, 2003, included in the
accompanying Management Report. Management is responsible for CarMax's
compliance with those requirements. Our responsibility is to express an opinion
on management's assertion about CarMax's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,
accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about CarMax's
compliance with those requirements and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our opinion does not provide a
legal determination on CarMax's compliance with specified requirements.

In our opinion, management's assertion that CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc.
complied with the requirements of the aforementioned section of the Agreement
for the period from June 1, 2002 to February 28, 2003 is fairly stated, in all
material respects.





/s/KPMG LLP


KPMG LLP


May 9, 2003





<PAGE>







                                Management Report




Management of CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc. (CarMax), as Servicer, is
responsible for compliance with the servicing requirements in section 3.9 of the
Sale and Servicing Agreement dated June 1, 2002, (the "Agreement") between
CarMax, as Seller and Servicer, Pooled Auto Securities Shelf, LLC and CarMax
Auto Owner Trust 2002-1.



Management has performed an evaluation of CarMax's compliance with the
aforementioned section of the Agreement for the period from June 1, 2002 through
February 28, 2003. Based upon this evaluation, management believes that, during
the period from June 1, 2002 through February 28, 2003, CarMax, as Servicer, was
materially in compliance with the aforementioned section of the Agreement.









CarMax, Inc. and subsidiaries





/s/Austin Ligon                                  /s/Keith D. Browning
---------------                                  --------------------
Austin Ligon                                     Keith D. Browning

President and Chief Executive Officer            Executive Vice President and
                                                 Chief Financial Officer






May 9, 2003
Record of Discussion 

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD 

With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, 

manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)? 

ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE TOPICS DISCUSSED 

BOErNG BRADY MITCHELL 9/23/2015 RELEASE OF SB REV. 

CALL MADE BY 

NICOLE POTIER 

BOEING TIM HENDRIX 9/30/2015 DLEE REQUEST FOR 

CONFIRMATION OF 

PART/SOFTWARE 

COSTS 

Other/ Additional Information:
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 01-30016

_____________________

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

FOUNDATION OF LOUISIANA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CYNTHIA BRIDGES, Etc.; ET AL.,

Defendants,

CYNTHIA BRIDGES, Secretary of the

Louisiana Department of Revenue,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 00-CV-1614

_________________________________________________________________

September 10, 2001

Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and BENAVIDES, Circuit

Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

This case came to us from an order of the district court

certifying for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) its

order that the plaintiff American Civil Liberties Union Foundation

of Louisiana had standing to bring suit, and declining to abstain
2

from deciding the case. We have reviewed the briefs and relevant

record, studied the issues presented, and heard argument from the

parties.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), a district judge may certify an

otherwise interlocutory order for immediate appeal if the “order

involves a controlling question of law as to which there is

substantial ground for difference of opinion and [] an immediate

appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate

termination of the litigation....” The appellate court has

discretion over whether to permit an appeal from such order. Id.

“‘The discretion afforded the courts of appeal in reviewing

petitions for leave to bring § 1292(b) appeals has been likened to

that of the Supreme Court in controlling its certiorari

jurisdiction.’” Parcel Tankers, Inc. v. Formosa Plastics Corp.,

764 F.2d 1153, 1156 (5th Cir. 1985), quoting C. Wright & A. Miller,

Federal Practice and Procedure § 3929, at 141 (1977).

If this court determines that it has accepted an interlocutory

appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) that is not suitable for such an

appeal, “it may vacate its order accepting appellate jurisdiction,

and remand the case to the district court.” Parcel Tankers, 764

F.2d at 1156, citing United States v. Bear Marine Services, 696

F.2d 1117 (5th Cir. 1983); Paschall v. Kansas City Star Co., 605

F.2d 403 (8th Cir. 1979); Moreau v. Tonry, 554 F.2d 163 (5th Cir.

1977). On further study, we have determined that the interlocutory
3

appeal in this case was improvidently granted and that the bases

for an interlocutory appeal are not present.

We therefore DISMISS this appeal without prejudice to the

issues raised, should they come before this court again after a

final appealable order or judgment.

D I S M I S S E D.
Exhibit 15.1
 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
   1.
    
    Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-156150) pertaining to the Randgold
Resources Share Option Scheme, Awards of Restricted Stock to Non-Executive Directors, Award
of Restricted Stock to D.M. Bristow, Award of Restricted Stock to G.P. Shuttleworth and the
Randgold Resources Restricted Share Scheme,2.
    
    Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-145013) pertaining to the Randgold
Resources Share Option Scheme and Restricted Stock Awards to Non-Executive Directors, and3.
    
    Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-103222) pertaining to the Randgold
Resources Share Option Scheme
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 10, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60112-60113]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-25808]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 27

[WT Docket No. 99-168]


Service Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz Bands; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

[[Page 60113]]

SUMMARY: This document makes clarifications and corrections to the 
service rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz bands, as published at 65 
FR 3139, January 20, 2000, and at 65 FR 17594, April 4, 2000.

DATES: Effective October 10, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Phillips, 202-418-1310.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission, in the final rules of the 
First Report and Order (65 FR 3139, January 20, 2000), and the Second 
Report and Order, (65 FR 17594, April 4, 2000) inadvertently failed to 
make specific reference to the definitional criterion for the Gulf of 
Mexico Economic Area presently set forth in Sec. 27.6(a)(2).
    In rule FR Doc. No. 00-8144 published on April 4, 2000 (65 FR 
17594) make the following correction.


Sec. 27.6  [Corrected]

    1. On page 17602, in the third column, in Sec. 27.6(b)(1) correct 
``paragraph (a)(1)'' to read ``paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2)''.
    In rule FR Doc. No. 00-1332 published on January 20, 2000 (65 FR 
3139) make the following correction.
    2. On page 3145, in the third column, in Sec. 27.6(b)(2), line 7, 
after the words ``See also'' add the phrase ``paragraphs (a)(1) and 
(a)(2) of this section and''.

Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-25808 Filed 10-6-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 6073

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ASHANTI RHAN HENRY, a/k/a A

- 1 , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Abingdon

. James P. Jones , District Judge. ( 1:12

- cr
- 00024

- JPJ

- RSB

- 1 )

Submitted : March 29, 2018 Decided: April 3, 2018

Before AGEE and DIAZ , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Ashanti Rhan Henry, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Mary Kathleen Carnell, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virgini a, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Ashanti Rhan Henry appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction . We have reviewed th e record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. United States v. Henry , No. 1:12

- cr
- 00024

- JPJ

- RSB

- 1 (W.D. Va. Dec. 15, 2017) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contenti ons are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
Exhibit 99.5

[LOGO]
imb IndymacBank(SM)



                             2005 Annual Statement as to Compliance
                              ------------------------------------



      The following hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge, that (i) a
review of the activities of the Servicer during the preceding calendar
year and of the performance of the Servicer under the agreements attached
hereto in Exhibit A have been made under the supervision of an officer of
IndyMac Bank, F.S.B., and (ii) to the best of my knowledge, based on the review,
IndyMac Bank, F.S.B., acting as Servicer, has fulfilled all its
obligations under these agreements throughout the year.



                                           By: /s/ Robert M. Abramian
                                           --------------------------
                                           Robert M. Abramian
                                           First Vice President
                                           Home Loan Servicing
                                           Investor Reporting
                                           Indymac Bank






<PAGE>

                                    EXHIBIT A

GSAA Home Equity Trust 2005-4
Greenwich Capital Harbor View 2005-5
#### CHAPEL HILL INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Appellants, v. C. N. HEATH et al., Appellees.

No. 3230.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

Oct. 21, 1954.

Clegg & Wright, Huntsville, for appellants.

John Ben Shepperd, Atty. Gen., Billy E. Lee, Asst. Atty. Gen., Milton M. Brownlee, Madisonville, for appellees.

McDONALD, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from an order of the Trial Court entered *7*August 1954 granting a summary judgment in favor of appel-lees. Appellants gave notice of appeal, but have failed to comply with Rule 356 T.R.C.P. and with Rule 381 T.R.C.P. Appellants’ failure to comply with the requirements of the foregoing rules is fatal to this appeal and for which reason this court has not and cannot acquire jurisdiction of this cause. Accordingly the appeal in this cause is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

TIREY and HALE, JJ., concur.
#### TAYLOR v. STATE.

No. 25033.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 13, 1950.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 14, 1951.

None on appeal.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of driving an automobile upon a public highway while under the influence of in*128toxicating liquor, and punishment was assessed at a fine of $50.

There are no bills of exception nor a statement of facts in the record, and the proceedings appear to be regular.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.