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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6922

HARVEY P. SHORT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ADRIAN HOKE, Warden,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. David A. Faber,

Senior District Judge. (2:09-cv-01097)

Submitted: November 30, 2010 Decided: December 7, 2010

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harvey P. Short, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Harvey P. Short seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying 

relief without prejudice on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition

for failure to exhaust state court remedies. The order is not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) 

(2006). 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) (2006). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that Short has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. Short’s motion to compel the Circuit Court of 

Kanawha County to adjudicate his state habeas corpus petition is 
3

denied. 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
### MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 10

- 00329

- CV

IN RE Jerrel L . JOHNSON

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Rebecca S immons , Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 19, 2010

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On April 29, 2010, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The court has

considered relator’s petition and is of the opinion that relator is not entitled to the relief sought.

Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied. T EX

. R

. A PP

. P . 52.8(a). Relator

shall pay all costs incurred in this proceeding.

PER CURIAM

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 357347 , styled Jerrel L. Johnson v. City of San Antonio , pending

in the County Court at Law No 3

, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable David J. Rodriguez presiding.
1

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

MICHAEL DEWANE GEISE, and )

BRANDI JOYCE GEISE, his wife, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) C.A. No. N23C-03-003 MMJ

)

BEEBE HEALTHCARE, INC., d/b/a )

BEEBE HEALTHCARE (FAMILY )

PRACTICE AT BEACON). )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

Submitted: April 14, 2023

Decided: May 10, 2023

Upon Defendant Beebe Healthcare, Inc.’s

Request to Determine if the Affidavit of Merit

Complies with 18 Del. C. §§ 6853(a)(1) and (c)

Section 6853(a)(1) of title 18 of the Delaware Code provides that all 

healthcare negligence complaints must be accompanied by an affidavit of merit as 

to each defendant signed by an expert witness, accompanied by a current curriculum 

vitae of the witness, stating that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there 

has been healthcare medical negligence committed by each defendant. 

In this case, the affidavit of merit was filed under seal, as required. Pursuant 

to 18 Del. C. § 6853(d), Defendant requested in camera review of the affidavit to 
2

determine compliance with sections 6853(a)(1) and (c). The Court has reviewed the 

affidavit of merit and the accompanying curriculum vitae. The Court finds:

1. The affidavit is signed by an expert witness.

2. The affidavit is accompanied by a current curriculum vitae.

3. The affidavit sets forth the expert’s opinion that there are reasonable 

grounds to believe that the applicable standard of care was breached by each named 

defendant.

4. The affidavit sets forth the expert’s opinion that there are reasonable 

grounds to believe that specifically enumerated breaches by each defendant 

proximately caused the injuries claimed in the complaint.

5. The expert witness was licensed to practice medicine as of the date of 

the affidavit.

6. In the 3 years immediately preceding the alleged negligent act, the 

expert witness was engaged in the treatment of patients and/or in the 

teaching/academic side of medicine in the fields of Internal Medicine, Hematology 

and Medical Oncology.

7. The expert witness is board-certified in Internal Medicine, Hematology 

and Medical Oncology. 

THEREFORE, the Court having reviewed in camera the affidavit of merit 

and accompanying curriculum vitae of plaintiff’s expert witness, the Court finds that 
3

the affidavit of merit complies with sections 6853(a)(1) and (c) of title 18 of the 

Delaware Code.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Mary M. Johnston

The Honorable Mary M. Johnston
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# ACTION:

Notice of advisory committee meetings. 

# SUMMARY:

The Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force on High Energy Laser Weapon Systems Applications will meet in closed session on November 14-15, 2000; December 14-15, 2000; January 23-24, 2001; February 21-22, 2001; March 13-14, 2001; April 17-18, 2001; and May 15-16, 2001, at Strategic Analysis Inc., 3601 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22201.

The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these meetings, the Task Force will review on-going or proposed programs in high energy laser (HEL) applications; examine recent supporting technology advancements and their applications with respect to supporting military HEL weapon system developments; develop potential military and strategic HEL system applications and identify processes required to implement these potentials; determine what needs to be done to weaponize these systems; and assess HEL operational concepts, impacts and limitations, considering legal, treaty and policy issues concerning HEL employment.

In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, P.L. No. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II, (1994)), it has been determined that these Defense Science Board meetings, concern matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) (1994), and that accordingly these meetings will be closed to the public.

Dated: October 10, 2000.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 00-26410  Filed 10-13-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO

______________________________________

MELODY JOY CANTU AND DR. RODRIGO 

CANTU,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DR. SANDRA GUERRA AND DIGITAL 

FORENSICS CORPORATION, LLC,

Defendants.

5:20-CV-0746 JKP – HJB

______________________________________

NOTICE OF INTENT TO TAKE ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF 

J. DAVID APPLE.

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 107-1 Filed 09/13/22 Page 1 of 3
1

NOTICE OF INTENT TO TAKE THE ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED 

DEPOSITION OF J. DAVID APPLE.

TO: J. DAVID APPLE c/o J. David Apple, Email: jdapple@applefinklaw.com; Apple & Fink, 

LLP, 735 Plaza Blvd., Suite 200, Coppell, Texas 75019.

Please take notice that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30 and the Scheduling 

Order Dkt. 89, regarding the discovery period, Plaintiffs Melody Joy Cantu and Dr. Rodrigo 

Cantu, intent to take the oral and/or videotaped deposition of Defendant Digital Forensics 

Corporation, LLC’s retained testifying expert, J. DAVID APPLE, before a notary public or 

some other officer authorized by law to administer oaths, at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 19, 

2022, by remote means via a videoconferencing platform.

The deposition, when taken, may continue from day to day until completed, and will be 

taken by stenographic means and videoconferencing examination with the answers to be used in 

the final trial of the above-styled and numbered cause. You are invited to have counsel present 

for purposes of cross-examination.

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 107-1 Filed 09/13/22 Page 2 of 3
2

NOTICE OF INTENT TO TAKE THE ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED 

DEPOSITION OF J. DAVID APPLE.

Dated: July 14, 2022 Stipulated and respectfully submitted,

/s/ Tor Ekeland

Tor Ekeland (NY Bar No. 4493631)

Pro Hac Vice

Tor Ekeland Law, PLLC

30 Wall Street, 8th Floor

New York, NY 

t: (718) 737 - 7264

f: (718) 504 - 5417

tor@torekeland.com

and

/s/ Rain Levy Minns

Rain Minns

State Bar No. 24034581

Minns Law Firm, P.C.

d/b/a Rain Minns Law Firm

4412 Spicewood Springs Rd., Suite 500

Austin, Texas 78759-8583

Tel.: 512-372-3222

Fax: 512-861-2403

rain@rainminnslaw.com

Counsel for Plaintiffs Melody Joy Cantu 

and Dr. Rodrigo Cantu

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 107-1 Filed 09/13/22 Page 3 of 3
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

The undersigned officer ofStockerYale, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies that the Company’s quarterlyreport on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2002, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company. This certification is provided solelypursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

 

 
| Date:  November 8, 2002 | Name:  | /s/ Mark W.  Blodgett                 |   |
|-------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                    |   | Mark W.  Blodgett                     |
|                    |   |                                  |
|                    |   |                                  |
|                    | Title: | Chairman and  Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
Opinion issued May 2 3 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 11
- 00079
- CV

——————————— FAIRWAYS OFFSHORE EX PLORATION, INC. , Appellant V. PATTERSON SERVICES, INC. AND CUDD PRESSU RE CONTROL, INC. , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 215th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 2007
- 59388

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION Appellant, Fairways Offshore Exploration, Inc. (“Fairways”) , and a ppellee , Cudd Pressure Control, Inc . (“Cudd”) , have filed a joint motion to partially dismiss the appeal in regard to their claims against each other , indicating that the y have2 settled the ir underlying dispute. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 10.3(a)(2), 42.1(a)(1). Fairways and Cudd further state that th ey hav e agreed to bear their own attorney’s fees and costs of appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(d). Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the portion of the appeal relating to Fairways’ claims against Cudd and Cudd’s claims against Fairways , with costs taxe d against the party who incurred the same. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1( d).
PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Sharp, and Brown.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-41666

ABRAHAM CAMPOS,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

JERILYNN YENNE, District Attorney for Brazoria County, Texas,

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:15-CV-284

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Abraham Campos, Texas prisoner # 721237, moves this court for 

authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) following the district court’s 

dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous and for failure to state 

a claim upon which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Campos argues that he stated a claim for a denial of due process based on the 

State’s refusal to release evidence for DNA testing. Campos has failed to show 

that he should be allowed to proceed IFP on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 18, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-41666 Document: 00514200925 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/18/2017
No. 16-41666

2

or that his appeal of the district court’s judgment presents a nonfrivolous issue. 

See Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 534 (2011); Dist. Att’ys Office for Third 

Jud. Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52, 67-68 (2009); Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 

586 (5th Cir. 1982). 

Even if DNA testing would show that Campos’s blood was not found on 

any of the listed evidence, such evidence would not be sufficient to overcome 

the evidence presented against him at trial. The testimony at trial was clear 

that Campos was not bleeding when he was arrested on the night of the 

murder. After detailing the evidence against Campos, the district court stated 

that the DNA evidence in question would not have cast any doubt on that 

evidence and would have corroborated the testimony that Campos was not 

bleeding at the time of his arrest. Campos has produced nothing to contradict 

this conclusion. Campos’s motion for leave to proceed IFP therefore is 

DENIED.

The facts surrounding the IFP decision are inextricably intertwined with 

the merits of the appeal. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 & n.24 (5th 

Cir. 1997). The appeal presents no nonfrivolous issues and is DISMISSED AS 

FRIVOLOUS. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 

The district court’s dismissal and the dismissal of this appeal count as 

two strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Coleman v. Tollefson, 

135 S. Ct. 1759, 1763-64 (2015); Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 

(5th Cir. 1996). We caution Campos that if he accumulates three strikes under 

§ 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed 

while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent 

danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

 Case: 16-41666 Document: 00514200925 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/18/2017
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 Mountain National Bancshares, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2005 (the
"Report"), I, Rick Hubbs, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, do hereby 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.

Dated: March 31, 2006                        /s/ Rick Hubbs
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Rick Hubbs, Senior Vice President and
                                           Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

PASAFESHARE LLC

vs.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

PASAFESHARE LLC

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL NO:

WA:20-CV-00397-ADA

ORDER RESETTING JURY TRIAL

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above entitled and numbered case is reset for

JURY TRIAL in District Courtroom #1, on the Third Floor of the United States Courthouse,

800 Franklin Ave, Waco, TX, on Monday, March 31, 2025 at 09:00 AM.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of September, 2024.

______________________________

ALAN D ALBRIGHT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00397-ADA Document 179 Filed 09/05/24 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CRIMINAL NO. A-20-MJ-501 

)

CYRIL LAURENCE LARTIGUE )

)

)

MOTION FOR DETENTION

COMES NOW the United States by and through its Assistant United States Attorney and 

files this motion for pretrial detention under Title 18, United States Code, Section 3141, et seq., 

and would show the Court the following:

1. The pending case involves:

[ ] (A) A crime of violence.

[ ] (B) An offense for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment or death.

[ ] (C) An offense for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is 

prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act, the Controlled Substances Import 

and Export Act of the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act.

[ ] (D) A felony committed after the Defendant had been convicted of two or more prior 

offenses described in Title 18, United States Code, Section 3142(f)(1)(A)-(C) or 

comparable state or local offense.

[X] (E) A felony that is not otherwise a crime of violence that involves a minor victim or 

that involves the possession or use of a firearm or destructive device, or any other 

dangerous weapon.

[ ] (F) A serious risk the Defendant will flee.

[ ] (G) A serious risk that the person will obstruct or attempt to obstruct justice, or 

attempt to threaten, injure or intimidate a prospective witness or juror.

Case 1:20-mj-00501-AWA Document 3 Filed 06/08/20 Page 1 of 2
[ ] (H) An offense committed by the Defendant while released pending trial or sentence, 

or while on probation or parole requiring an initial 10 day detention pursuant to 

18 U.S.C. § 3142(d).

[ ] (I) An offense committed by the above named defendant who is not a citizen of the 

United States or lawfully admitted for permanent residence requiring an initial 10 

day detention under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3142(d).

2. No condition or combination of conditions will:

[ ] (A) Reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required.

[X] (B) Reasonably assure the safety of the community of any other person.

The United States may advocate additional reasons for detention other than those indicated 

above as the investigation proceeds and new information becomes available.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f) the United States moves that the detention hearing be 

continued for three (3) days so that the United States can prepare for said hearing.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Government requests that the Defendant 

be held without bond.

Respectfully submitted,

JOHN F. BASH

United States Attorney

By: /s/ KEITH M. HENNEKE

Keith M. Henneke

Assistant U.S. Attorney

903 San Jacinto Blvd., Suite 334

Austin, Texas 78701

Office (512) 916-5858

Fax (512) 916-5854

Case 1:20-mj-00501-AWA Document 3 Filed 06/08/20 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 17, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 61312]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26543]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Title, Form Number, and OMB Number: Shipper's Export Declaration 
(SED) Program; ENG Form 7513; OMB Number 0710-[To be Determined].
    Type of Request: New Collection.
    Number of Respondents: 13,000.
    Responses Per Respondent: 12.
    Annual Responses: 164,367.
    Average Burden Per Response: 11 minutes.
    Annual Burden Hours: 29,737.
    Needs and Uses: The data collected are movements of foreign cargo 
from one foreign country to another foreign country through a U.S. 
water port. Since goods are neither produced nor consumed in the U.S., 
they do not count in the balance of trade statistics, but are important 
from a water transportation standpoint. Vessels moving these goods are 
federally maintained channels, and these goods should be included in 
federal water transportation in multi-modal transportation analysis. 
The Army Corps of Engineers and Maritime Administration (MARAD) use the 
data from the program to satisfy the missions of their respective 
agencies. The Corps is responsible for the operation and maintenance of 
the nation's waterway system to ensure efficient and safe passage of 
commercial and recreation vessels. The support and management of 
economically sound navigation projects are dependent upon reliable 
navigation data mandated by the River and Harbor Appropriations Act of 
September 22, 1922 (42 Stat. 1043), as amended and codified in 33 
U.S.C. 555.
    Affected Public: Business or Other For-Profit.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.
    OMB Desk Officer: Mr. Jim Laity.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Mr. Laity at the Office of Management and 
Budget, Desk Officer for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Room 10202, 
New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Robert Cushing.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Mr. Cushing, WHS/DIOR, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, 
Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302.

    Dated: October 11, 2000.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 00-26543 Filed 10-16-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-M