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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7685

DERRICK HARRELL, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. ANTHONY HATHAWAY, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:07-hc-02052-H)

Submitted: March 6, 2009 Decided: April 8, 2009

Before MICHAEL, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derrick Harrell, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Derrick Harrell seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his post-judgment motion, construed by the court as a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), seeking reconsideration of the court’s order dismissing as untimely Harrell’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. 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). 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. See

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). On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised

in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Harrell’s brief alleges no error committed by the district court in denying his motion, and we discern none. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

23 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<table>

                                      EXHIBIT 12.01
                                  PACIFIC ENTERPRISES
                   COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                 (Dollars in millions)
<caption>


                                             1997       1998       1999       2000       2001
                                          -------   --------   --------   --------   --------

                                         <c>       <c>        <c>        <c>        <c>
Fixed charges:

Interest                                     $ 91       $ 84       $ 82       $ 72       $ 88
Interest portion of annual rentals             12         11          3          4          3
Preferred dividends of subsidiaries (1)        13          2          2          2          2
                                          -------   --------   --------   --------   --------
Total fixed charges for purpose of ratio     $116       $ 97       $ 87       $ 78       $ 93
                                          =======   ========   ========   ========   ========

Earnings:

Pretax income from continuing operations     $335       $274       $350       $396      $377
Add: Total fixed charges (from above)         116         97         87         78        93
                                          -------   --------   --------   --------   -------
Total earnings for purpose of ratio          $451       $371       $437       $474      $470
                                          =======   ========   ========   ========   =======

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges           3.89       3.82       5.02       6.08      5.05
                                          =======   ========   ========   ========   =======


(1) In computing this ratio, "Preferred dividends of subsidiaries" represents the
before-tax earnings necessary to pay such dividends, computed at the effective tax
rates for the applicable periods.

</table>
#### PHILLIPPS v. STATE.

No. 16498.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 14, 1934.

W. D. Justice, of Athens, and Alex P. Pope, of Tyler, for appellant.

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

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

Theft of an automobile is the offense; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

The purported statement of facts is entirely in question and answer form. This court is not authorized to consider it for any purpose. See Acts of 42d Legislature, 1st Called Session, chapter 34, p. 75 (Vern'on’s *416Ann. Civ. St. arts. 2237-2239 and note, and Vernon’s Ann. C. C. P. art. 760, subd. 1, and note); also the application of the article in Wooten v. State, 121 Tex. Cr. R. 462, 50 S.W.(2d) 834; Olivares v. State, 121 Tex. Cr. R. 261, 53 S.W.(2d) 305; Hill v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 55 S.W.(2d) 835; Turman v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 60 S.W.(2d) 231; Oliver v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 60 S.W.(2d) 234.

The record contains but one bill of exception, which complains of the argument of the attorney for the state. Without quoting the argument, we will state that its transcends the rule of legitimate debate and comments upon matters not open to discussion, unless invited by the opposing party. However, the absence of the statement of facts precludes the authority of the court to order a reversal =of the conviction because of the argument. Not having before us the evidence heard by the jury, we cannot be assured but that the evidence of guilt was conclusive and uneontroverted. Especially is this true in view of the approval of the verdict by the trial judge. Under the circumstances, we are constrained to affirm the judgment with the statement, th-at if there were before us evidence presenting a question touching the guilt of the accused, we would be disposed to order a reversal 'of the judgment because of the argument mentioned.

The judgment is affirmed.
# C_2022271EN.01000201.xml

| 14.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10618 – WACKER NEUSON / PORR / UMDASCH GROUP / SEQUELLO JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 271/02)

On 11 July 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in German language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10618. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10618. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
#### ALLDREDGE v. HALLBROOK et al.

No. 3760.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.

Oct. 27, 1938.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 23, 1938.

NEALON, Chief Justice.

No briefs have been filed in this case." The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-21-00393-CR

Kimberly Jordan Sosa

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

25th District Court of Lavaca County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2018-07-10070CR

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

April 6, 2023
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

MASIMO CORPORATION,

Appellant

v.

APPLE INC.,

Appellee

______________________ 

2022-2069, 2022-2070, 2022-2071, 2022-2072

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2021-

00193, IPR2021-00195, IPR2021-00208, IPR2021-00209.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

STEPHEN W. LARSON, Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, 

LLP, Irvine, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by 

STEPHEN C. JENSEN, JAROM D. KESLER, JOSEPH R. RE; 

JEREMIAH HELM, Washington, DC. 

 LAUREN ANN DEGNAN, Fish & Richardson P.C., Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by 

CHRISTOPHER DRYER, WALTER KARL RENNER; ASHLEY 

BOLT, Atlanta, GA. 

 ______________________ 

Case: 22-2069 Document: 38 Page: 1 Filed: 09/12/2023
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (LOURIE, PROST, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

September 12, 2023 

Date

/s/ Jarrett B. Perlow

Jarrett B. Perlow

Clerk of Court

Case: 22-2069 Document: 38 Page: 2 Filed: 09/12/2023
OPTICAL COATING LABORATORY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                 EXHIBIT 11.  COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


Years Ended October 31, 1997, 1996 and 1995
(Amounts in thousands, except per share data)         1997      1996    1995


PRIMARY SHARES:

Average common shares outstanding.................  10,191    9,629    9,144
Common equivalent shares outstanding..............     482      672      367
                                                    10,673   10,301     9,511

Net income........................................  $7,125   $5,196   $ 7,391
Less dividend on preferred stock..................     693      960       462

Net income applicable to common stock.............  $6,432   $4,236   $ 6,929

Net income per common and common
  equivalent share, primary.......................  $  .60   $  .41   $   .73



FULLY DILUTED SHARES:

Average common shares outstanding.................  10,191   9,629     9,144
Common equivalent shares outstanding..............     525      685      456
Potential dilution of preferred stock.............       *        *       553
                                                    10,716   10,314    10,153

Net income applicable to common stock.............  $6,432   $4,236   $ 6,929
Add back dividend on preferred stock..............       *        *       462

Net income for calculating fully diluted
  earnings per share..............................  $6,432   $4,236   $ 7,391

Net income per common and common
  equivalent share, fully diluted.................  $  .60   $  .41   $  .73

*Excluded because the result would be anti-dilutive.

NOTE:     Fully diluted earnings per share do not result in dilution of
          three percent or more or are anti-dilutive and, therefore, are
          not separately presented in the consolidated statements of income.
EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0190-0112 

http://www.industrialprojectsreport.com/site/links.aspx

This website is available at the above address. This website provides advertisements for 

available construction jobs. At the time we examined this website, most job openings 

advertised offered 40 hrs of work per week.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER>                      1,000

<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>            DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>               JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                 DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                           58,893
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>            1,730
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                 25,400
<TRADING-ASSETS>                      0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>     329,668
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>           14,303
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>             14,284
<LOANS>                         998,895
<ALLOWANCE>                      10,128
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                1,474,048
<DEPOSITS>                    1,147,203
<SHORT-TERM>                    127,176
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>              10,687
<LONG-TERM>                      62,686
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0
<COMMON>                          1,367
<OTHER-SE>                      124,929
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>1,474,048
<INTEREST-LOAN>                  78,599
<INTEREST-INVEST>                20,702
<INTEREST-OTHER>                  1,162
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                100,463
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>               38,539
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               46,898
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>            53,565
<LOAN-LOSSES>                     2,241
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                  257
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                  14,316
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  29,187
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>       19,088
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                     19,088
<EPS-BASIC>                           0
<EPS-DILUTED>                      1.58
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                     4.27
<LOANS-NON>                        1280
<LOANS-PAST>                      2,327
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                      0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                       0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                  9,209
<CHARGE-OFFS>                      1769
<RECOVERIES>                        447
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                10,128
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>             10,128
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                   0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>               0




</TABLE>
701 A.2d 98

#### In the Matter of the REINSTATEMENT OF Gerald Ney KLAUBER.

Misc. Docket (Subtitle BV) No. 48,

Sept. Term, 1992.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Oct. 10, 1997.

Melvin Hirshman, Bar Counsel, and Kendall R. Calhoun, Assistant Bar Counsel, for the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, for Petitioner.

*272Andrew Jay Graham, Baltimore, for Respondent.

Argued before BELL, C.J., ELDRIDGE, CHASANOW, BAKER and WILNER, JJ., and KARWACKI, J. (retired), Specially Assigned.

ORDER

BELL, Chief Judge.

The Court having considered the petition for reinstatement, the reports and recommendations of the Inquiry Panel and Review Board of the Attorney Grievance Commission, the Petitioner’s exceptions and recommendation and the oral arguments of Assistant Bar Counsel and Petitioner’s counsel, it is this 10th day of October, 1997,

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the petition for reinstatement be, and it is hereby, DENIED.

ELDRIDGE, J., would have granted the petition for reinstatement.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KURT A. MOROZKO, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

SHOSHONE COUNTY, Idaho; CITY OF 

OSBURN, Idaho, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-35622 

D.C. No. 1:19-cv-00512-BLW 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho

B. Lynn Winmill, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 18, 2021**

Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Kurt A. Morozko appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims. We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAY 27 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-35622 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 

1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm. 

The district court properly dismissed Morozko’s federal claims because 

Morozko failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he suffered a constitutional 

violation as a result of an official policy or custom. See Castro v. County of Los 

Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1073-76 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (discussing 

requirements to establish municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social 

Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978)).

The district court properly dismissed Morozko’s claims for violation of 

Idaho’s criminal statutes because criminal statutes generally do not give rise to a 

private right of action. See Cent. Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of 

Denver, N.A., 511 U.S. 164, 190 (1994). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by enforcing the 20-page limit 

for pro se prisoner complaints in civil rights cases, set forth in Idaho General Order 

No. 342. See Leong v. Potter, 347 F.3d 1117, 1125 (9th Cir. 2003) (reviewing for 

abuse of discretion a district court’s decision to enforce its procedural rules).

We reject as meritless Morozko’s contention that the screening requirements 

of the Prison Litigation Reform Act are unconstitutional.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 
3 20-35622 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Morozko’s motion for an order to show cause is denied. 

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 10.2



 





Exhibit 10.2



PAN AMERICAN FINANCE, LLC




October 19th, 2004



Mr. Ted Field

Chairman of the Board

ARTISTdirect, Inc.

10900 Wilshire Blvd

Suite 1400

Los Angeles, CA 90024



Dear Ted,


This is to inform you that I, Benjamin S. A. Moody, am hereby resigning
from the Board of Directors of ARTISTdirect, Inc. effective as of October
18, 2004.



It’s been a pleasure to have had the opportunity to serve on your Board
for the past 4 years.



Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have further questions.




Yours Sincerely,



Benjamin S. A. Moody

Managing Director



501 Brickell Key Drive, Suite 300, Miami, Florida 33131

Telephone (305) 577-9799 Facsimile (305) 577-9766
698 A.2d 1106

#### ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND, Petitioner, v. Timothy J. YATES, Respondent.

Misc. Docket AG, No. 44,

Sept. Term, 1997.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Aug. 26, 1997.

ORDER

A Petition for Inactive Status having been filed by Timothy J. Yates, Esquire, and Bar Counsel having consented to that petition, it is this *26th*day of August, 1997.

ORDERED by the Court of Appeals of Maryland that the Petition for Inactive Status be, and it is hereby, granted and Timothy J. Yates is to be placed on Inactive Status subject to further order of this Court, and it is further,

ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall remove the name of Timothy J. Yates from the register of attorneys in this Court and shall certify that fact to the Trustees of the Clients’ Security Trust Fund and the clerks of all judicial tribunals in the State in accordance with Rule 16-713.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                 RESTRAC, INC.
                                   EXHIBIT 11
                STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
           (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER SHARE AND SHARE AMOUNTS)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                 THREE MONTHS ENDED     THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                 DECEMBER 31, 1996      DECEMBER 31, 1995
                                                 ------------------     ------------------
  <S>                                            <C>                    <C>
  PRIMARY AND FULLY-DILUTED:
    Net Income (Loss)..........................      $     (308)            $      225
                                                      =========              =========
    Weighted Average Shares of Common Stock
       Outstanding.............................       7,895,053              3,870,000
    Conversion of Preferred Stock..............        --                    2,502,696
    Dilutive Effect of Options Issued prior to
       5/10/95.................................        --                      351,383
    Effect of Cheap Stock Options..............        --                      151,163
    Shares issuable in IPO to fund Cumulative
       Dividends...............................        --                       37,161
                                                      ---------              ---------
    Fully weighted average number of common and
       common equivalent shares oustanding.....       7,895,053              6,912,403
                                                      =========              =========
  PRIMARY AND FULLY-DILUTED NET (LOSS)
    INCOME PER SHARE...........................      $    (0.04)            $     0.03
                                                      =========              =========
</TABLE>
 
                                       13
#### RAYMONDVILLE STATE BANK et al. v. RUSSELL et ux.

No. 10635.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Dec. 13, 1939.

Crane & Glarner, of Raymondville, for appellant.

J. M. Mothershead, of Harlingen, for ap-pellees.

MURRAY, Justice.

This suit was instituted by George W. Russell and wife, Minnie Lee Russell, against IT. E. Tomme and the Raymondville State Bank of Raymondville, seeking to enjoin H. E. Tomme, as trustee, from selling certain property located in the Townsite of Combes, Cameron County, Texas. Tomme had posted notice of his intentions to sell such property by virtue of a power of sale contained in a certain deed of trust executed by Russell and wife, in which he was named as trustee for the benefit of the Ray-mondville State Bank.

The trial was to a jury and, upon jury findings favorable to Russell and wife, the trial judge entered judgment granting the injunction, from which judgment the Bank has appealed.

Appellants’ brief does not set forth any assignments of error. Appellees object to our consideration of the brief in the absence of assignments of error.

This Court has recently held that where appellant’s brief does not contain assignments of error it cannot be considered by the Court of Civil Appeals. Central Power & Light Company, Appellant v. Louis Heder, Appellee, 133 S.W.2d 795, decided November 15, 1939.

For the reasons stated in the above opinion we cannot consider appellants’ brief in the case at bar, and finding no fundamental error in the record the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 17, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 76081]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-21090]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[B-23-2024]


Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 207; Authorization of Production 
Activity; voestalpine High Performance Metals LLC; (Wire Rod); South 
Boston, Virginia

    On May 15, 2024, voestalpine High Performance Metals submitted a 
notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its 
facility within Subzone 207E, in South Boston, Virginia.
    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations 
of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal 
Register inviting public comment (89 FR 44959, May 22, 2024). On 
September 12, 2024, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's 
decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this 
time. The production activity described in the notification was 
authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, 
including section 400.14.

    Dated: September 12, 2024.
Elizabeth Whiteman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-21090 Filed 9-16-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P