alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 The Honorable Henry L. J ones, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 07-3125

___________ Anthony P. Lane, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, * Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: May 15, 2008 Filed: May 30, 2008

___________ Before BYE, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. In this interlocutory appeal, Anthony P. Lane appeals the district court’s 1 order denying his motion for appointment of counsel . We find no abuse of discretion. See Phillips v. Jasper County Jail , 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006) (there is no statutory or constitutional right to appointed counsel in civil case; discussing factors). However, it appears from documents Lane filed near the time of the August 2007-2- order at issue, and from his filings in this c ourt, that his mental status has changed and that he and the district court might now benefit from the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, we affirm but we clarify that the district court’s order is without prejudice to Lane’s right to renew his request for counsel as the case progresses. See Nelson v. Shuffman , 476 F.3d 635, 636 (8th Cir. 2007) (per curiam).

______________________________
Exhibit 99

                              Intellectual Property

The trade names  "BeautyBuys",  "NetCigar",  and  "Cigargold.com" for which U.S.
trademark applications have been filed.

THE  COMPANY  OR  ITS   SUBSIDIARIES   ARE   LICENSED   TO  USE  THE   FOLLOWING
TRADENAMES/TRADEMARKS:

Suarez Gran Reserve     Breton Legend   Breton Corojo Vintage   Nativos
Corojo 2000             Andulleros      Alimerante              MikeDitka
Don Otilio              Country Value   Country Fair            Palm Spices
Gourmet Select          Rich n Moist    Rich n Fluffy

THE COMPANY OR ITS SUBSIDIARIES OWN THE FOLLOWING DOMAIN NAMES:


SYBR.COM              ADD2CART.COM
SYNERGYBRANDS.COM     SALEBYNET.COM
BEAUTYBONUS.COM       DEALBYNET.COM
SALONCOUNTER.COM      DEALBUYNET.COM
FRAGANCESALON.COM     BEAUTYBUYS.COM
GLOBALSALON.COM       BEAUTYBUY.COM
FRAGRANCESALON.COM    CIGARGOLD.COM
SALONBUY.COM


     The Company  also is studying the  advantages  and  marketing  potential of
establishing  private  label sales in the health and beauty  aids and  cosmetics
business  areas to take  advantage  of certain  inroads  to these type  consumer
products the Company has  historically  located and developed.  The Company also
has  entered  multiple  licensing  and  production   agreements   regarding  the
establishment of internet sites for sale of the Company's products.  The Company
has trademarked its websites on the internet.

                                      EX-99
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       9,412,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               18,513,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            31,094,000
<PP&E>                                       6,080,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 831,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              57,500,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,054,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  34,050,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                57,500,000
<SALES>                                    122,263,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           122,263,000
<CGS>                                       67,933,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              119,304,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (576,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,535,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,379,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,156,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,156,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .24
        

</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 6217** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. LEEANDER JEROME BLAKE Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore
. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. ( 1:06

- cr - 00394

- WMN

- 1; 1:11

- cv - 00080

- WMN )

Submitted : June 14, 2012 Decided: June 19, 2012

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Leeander Jerome Blake, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Clayton Hanlon, John Francis Purcell, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Leeander Jerome Blake seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2011 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6 ). 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) (200 6 ). When the dist rict 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 (2 000); 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 motion 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 Blake has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We d ispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>   1



                                  EXHIBIT 11.1


                 STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                       Three Months Ended
                                              -------------------------------------
                                                   March 31,         March 31,
                                                     1999              1998
                                              -------------------------------------
<S>                                           <C>                <C>         
Net income (in thousands)                       $        726       $      1,960
                                              =====================================

Weighted average common shares outstanding         9,874,613         10,397,714
                                              =====================================
Basic income per share                          $       0.07       $       0.19
                                              =====================================
Dilutive effect of options and warrants
outstanding under treasury-stock method              285,020          1,325,296
                                              =====================================
                                                  10,159,633         11,723,010
                                              =====================================
Diluted income per share                        $       0.07       $       0.17
                                              =====================================

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6015

IRA WAYNE MADISON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District

Judge. (CA-02-1232-7)

Submitted: February 20, 2003 Decided: February 28, 2003

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ira Wayne Madison, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Ira Wayne Madison appeals from the district court orders

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint and denying

his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on

the reasoning of the district court. See Madison v. Virginia, No.

CA-02-1232-7 (W.D. Va. Nov. 27 & Dec. 17, 2002). On appeal, Madison

asserts that the district court misconstrued a portion of his

complaint. We find that his claims—even as clarified—were subject

to dismissal. See Dist. of Columbia Ct. of App. v. Feldman, 460

U.S. 462, 482-86 (1983); see also McMahan v. International Ass’n of

Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, 964 F.2d 1462, 1467

(4th Cir. 1992) (holding that appellate courts may “affirm a

judgment for any reason appearing on the record”). 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           5,877
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   81,560
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,763
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           8,210
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 117,691
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            73
<OTHER-SE>                                      73,375
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   117,691
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,517
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,267
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,267
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 813
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,170
<INCOME-TAX>                                       868
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,302
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,302
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .18


</TABLE>
I 

"VI#CIIV~ - Temporary Revision 

PSMNO.: 1- 2T- 2 AIRCRAFT: DHC-2 TURBO BEAVER SERIES: ALL 

PUBLICATION: MAINTENANCE MANUAL TEMPORARY REVISION NO.: 2T-14 

Insert In Part 4, after page 92 

PERIODIC INSPECTION 

REASON FOR ISSUE: 

To add Elevator Control Rod Assembly to Periodic Inspection. 

ACTION: 

In Part 4, insert item 20A. 

INSP. DUE ITEM NO. 

4th 20A. Inspect the Elevator Control Rod, Elevator Actuating Lever, and the Column 

Torque Tube for corrosion, cracks and damage in accordance with paragraph 

6.19C. 

RECORDING INSTRUCTIONS: 

Record this Temporary Revision No. and the relevant information in the appropriate columns of the 

TEMPORARY REVISION INDEX provided at the front of the manual. 

Part 4 (TR 2T-14) 

Page 1 of 2 

04 March, 2015 
Temporary Revision No. 2T-14 (Cont'd) 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Part 4 (TR 2T-14) 

Page2 of 2 

04 March, 2015
#### WILSON v. STATE.

No. 21025.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 10, 1940.

Rehearing Denied May 15, 1940.

McCoy, Ilill & Brady, of Houston, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

It was alleged in the indictment herein that appellant had committed the crime of burglary, and further that in cause No. 41105 in the District Court of Harris County, on September 20, 1935, the appellant had theretofore been convicted of robbery by assault; and that in cause'No. 35302, in the same .court, on May 27, 1931, appellant was convicted of the offense of burglary. Upon conviction in the instant case, alleged and proven to have been committed on June 22, 1939, for a felony, and proof of the conviction of the other two felonies charged, the court sentenced appellant to the penitentiary for life.

Under Article 63, P.C., this was the proper procedure. The testimony is sufficient on all matters, the identity of appellant being established in each felony.

The judgment is affirmed.

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

Appellant has filed a general motion for rehearing. He fails to specify any grounds of error.

We have carefully re-examined the record in the light of the original opinion, herein. Such examination leads us' to the-conclusion that the record fails to reflect, error, and, further, . that the evidence is. sufficient to support the judgment of conviction.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has heen examined by the-Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals.. and approved by the Court.
#### The State, ex rel. McGann, *v.*Evatt, Tax Commr., et al.

(No. 28106

Decided July 2, 1941.)

*423
      *Mr. Jerome Goldman,*for relator.

*Mr. Thomas J. Herbert,*attorney general, *Mr. Howard Bernstein*and *Mr. John P. Walsh,*for respondents.

*424By the Court.

Although the members of the Board of Tax Appeals and the Civil Service Commission are named as respondents, the brief of counsel for relator presents no question of law arising from the allegations as to those two bodies.

These three questions are propounded in the brief for relator: First, did the respondent Tax Commissioner have any legal right to supplant the relator with Maddux through the device of calling him a deputy? Second, was there really a‘consolidation of positions for the purpose of economy and was relator’s position abolished in good faith as a result thereof, or was there a mere manipulation of positions and titles for the purpose of getting rid of relator and replacing him? Third, was any economy intended or effected by the change?

As to the first question, paragraph 11 of Section 1464-3, General Code (118 Ohio Laws, 346), authorizes the Tax Commissioner to appoint five deputy tax commissioners. The respondent Tax Commissioner made an appointment pursuant to that statutory authorization and the record reveals no supplanting through the device of calling an appointee a deputy.

As to the second and third questions, the record discloses a consolidation of positions, the abolishment of relator’s position in good faith and an economy effected.

The law involved in this proceeding was declared in *State, ex rel. Stine,*v. *McCaw, Chief of Div. of Aid for Aged,*137 Ohio St., 13, 27 N. E. (2d), 488.

A writ of mandamus will be denied.

*Writ denied.*

Weygandt, C. J., Turner, Williams, Hart, Zimmerman and Bettman, JJ., concur.

Matthias, J., not participating.
**Exhibit 23.1**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

We have issued ourreports dated March 12, 2010, accompanying the consolidated financial statements and management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of Gulfport Energy Corporation onForm 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of Gulfport Energy Corporation on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-135728, effectiveJuly 12, 2006; File No. 333-129178, effective October 21, 2005; and File No. 333-55738, effective February 16, 2001) and on Forms S-3 (File No. 333-146988, effective November 13, 2007; File No. 333-143659,effective July 18, 2007; and File No. 333-139480, effective January 23, 2007). 

/s/ GRANTTHORNTON LLP 

Oklahoma City, OK 

March 12, 2010
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0611 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. RANDALL PATRICK ATKINS,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including March 13 , 2024 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 5 2024

02/05/2024

Case Number: DA 22-0611
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 Quarterly Report of EP MedSystems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in
the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies 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 operation of
         the Company


Date:  August 11, 2004                   /s/ Matthew C. Hill
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Matthew C. Hill
                                         Chief Financial Officer
                                         (Principal Financial Officer)
**Exhibit 24.07**

**AMBAC FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.**

**Power of Attorney**

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that the undersigned director of Ambac Financial Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, hereby constitutes and appoints eachof **Sean T. Leonard**and**Anne Gill Kelly,** as her true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of substitution, for her and in her name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign the **Annual Report on Form 10-Kfor the year ended December 31, 2008**, to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the New York Stock Exchange, and any and all amendments thereto, and any and all instruments and documents filed as a part of or in connectionwith the said **Form 10-K** or amendments thereto, and does hereby grant unto each said attorney-in-fact and agent full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about thepremises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he or she might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that each said attorney-in-fact and agent shall do or cause to be done by virtue hereof. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has subscribed these presents as of this 25th day of February 2009. 

/s/    Laura S. Unger                

Laura S. Unger
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**

**Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Richard L. Keister, certify that: 

 

1. Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b)evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 10, 2004