alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 96-10241

Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CHRISTOPHER LEE,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Texas

3:95-CR-351-G)

______________________________________________

October 10, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Christopher Lynn Lee appeals his guilty-plea conviction and

sentence for two counts of using and carrying a firearm during and

in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 924(c)(1). Lee argues that the district court abused its
2

discretion in denying his motion to disqualify defense counsel and

appoint substitute counsel.

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s oral

ruling of February 27, 1996, and find no reversible error. Lee’s

claim of conflict of interest is based upon the relationship

between attorney Carroll and attorney McLarty as it relates to

pursuing a motion to withdraw his plea of guilty. Inasmuch as the

district court correctly determined that attorney Carroll was not

ineffective and that there was no basis upon which to grant Lee’s

motion to withdraw, there was no basis upon which to disqualify

attorney McLarty. Lee was not denied conflict-free counsel when

attorney McLarty did not pursue a meritless motion to withdraw.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM essentially on the same reasoning as

the district court.
Order issued September iy , 2012 

In The 

Tourt afAppeato 

ci1ttiElistrirt ufa'rxas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-00896-CV 

MARY E. BIVINS FOUNDATION, ET AL., Appellants 

V. 

HIGHLAND CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P., ET AL., Appellees 

ORDER 

On September 7, 2012, a supplemental clerk' s record was filed containing the documents 

requested in this Court's order dated July 25, 2012. Accordingly, appellants' brief is due THIRTY 

DAYS from the date of this order.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                      Statement of Chief Executive Officer
         Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code


         Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, I,
Kenneth A. Swanstrom, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Penn Engineering &
Manufacturing Corp. (the "Company"), hereby certify that, to the best of my
knowledge:

         1.       The Company's Form 10-K Annual Report for the period ended
                  December 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the
                  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
                  Exchange Act of 1934; and

         2.       The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.




Date:  March 15, 2004                      /s/ Kenneth A. Swanstrom
                                           ------------------------------------
                                           Kenneth A. Swanstrom,
                                           Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-14-00215-CV

____________________

IN THE INTEREST OF D.C.

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the 359th District Court 

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 11-04-03639 CV 

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

The appellant filed a notice of appeal but failed to file a brief. We notified 

the parties that the brief of the appellant had not been filed and warned the 

appellant that his failure to file a brief could result in a dismissal of the appeal for 

want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1). We notified the parties that 

the appeal would be submitted to the Court without oral argument. See Tex. R.

App. P. 39.8. Appellant did not respond to this Court’s notices.

“A court of appeals may not reverse a trial court’s judgment in the absence 

of properly assigned error.” San Jacinto River Auth. v. Duke, 783 S.W.2d 209, 210 
2

(Tex. 1990). In the absence of a brief assigning error for appellate review, we 

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

 ________________________________

 LEANNE JOHNSON

 Justice

Submitted on October 15, 2014

Opinion Delivered October 16, 2014

Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Note:  This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Form 10-K for the Year Ended December 31, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>  0001058626
<NAME> TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS INC
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          23,979
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,730
<ALLOWANCES>                                       538
<INVENTORY>                                     42,915
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                96,205
<PP&E>                                          44,695
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,132
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 381,690
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           77,647
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     11,699
<COMMON>                                            53
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   381,690
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               271,683
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  290,102
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              28,791
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (47,210)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,127
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (58,337)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (58,337)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2023283EN.01012901.xml

| 11.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 283/129 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/129

---

P9_TA(2023)0041

EU/North Macedonia Agreement: operational activities carried out by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency in the Republic of North Macedonia

European Parliament legislative resolution of 15 February 2023 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of North Macedonia on operational activities carried out by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency in the Republic of North Macedonia (12895/2022 — C9-0369/2022 — 2022/0301(NLE))

(Consent)

(2023/C 283/24)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (12895/2022), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (12895/2022),

| — | having regard to the draft Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of North Macedonia on operational activities carried out by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency in the Republic of North Macedonia (12896/2022), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of North Macedonia on operational activities carried out by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency in the Republic of North Macedonia (12896/2022),

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 77(2)(b) and (d), Article 79(2)(c) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C9-0369/2022), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 77(2)(b) and (d), Article 79(2)(c) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C9-0369/2022),

| — | having regard to Rule 105(1) and (4) and Rule 114(7) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 105(1) and (4) and Rule 114(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A9-0027/2023), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A9-0027/2023),

| 1. | Gives its consent to the conclusion of the agreement; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Republic of North Macedonia. |
| --- | --- |

2.

---
[No. 18969-4-III.

Division Three.

November 2, 2000.]

#### Colleen Stokes, *Appellant,*v. Scott L. Polley, et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Chelan County, No. 98-2-01130-5, John E. Bridges, J., entered November 15, 1999. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Brown, A.C. J., concurred in by Sweeney and Schultheis, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 11

                       CLAREMONT TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC.
                              AND SUBSIDIARIES
                     CALCULATIONS OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
                   (in thousands, except per share amounts)



<TABLE>

<CAPTION>

                                                  Three Months Ended September 30,
                                         -------------------------------------------------------
                                                   1996                       1995
                                         --------------------------   --------------------------
                                         Primary      Fully Diluted   Primary      Fully Diluted
                                         -------      -------------   -------      -------------

<S>                                      <C>          <C>             <C>          <C>


 Weighted Average Shares 
 Outstanding for the Period                6,623          6,623        4,505            4,505

 Dilutive Warrants Using 
 the Treasury Stock Method                   220            285           --                --

 Dilutive Common Stock 
 Options Using the Treasury 
 Stock Method                              2,437          2,516        2,709           2,691 

 Shares added pursuant to 
 SAB 83                                       --             --          466             466 
                                          -------        -------      ------         -------

 Total Shares Used for Per 
 Share Calculations                        9,280          9,424        7,680           7,662 
                                          ======         ======       ======         =======

 Net Income                               $1,067         $1,067         $538            $538 

 Adjustment to Income to 
 Give Effect for 20% Treasury 
 Stock Limitation                             --             --           33              32 
                                          ------         ------       ------         -------

 Net Income as Adjusted                   $1,067         $1,067         $571            $570 
                                          ======         ======       ======         =======

 Net Income Per Share                      $0.12          $0.11        $0.07           $0.07
                                          ======         ======       ======         =======


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM 10-
QSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001013274
<NAME> IBW FINANCIAL CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          12,452
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           3,025
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                17,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    101,067
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        114,128
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,107
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 254,483
<DEPOSITS>                                     210,206
<SHORT-TERM>                                    21,238
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,093
<LONG-TERM>                                      1,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              668
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           500
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,778
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 254,483
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  2,667
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,589
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   243
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 4,499
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,290
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,527
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,972
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      600
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 121
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,989
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    285
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         285
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       234
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.35
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.31
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,322
<LOANS-PAST>                                       348
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  9,350
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,702
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      220
<RECOVERIES>                                        25
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,107
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,107
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 2, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-41236 Summary Calendar

LEON LEE SAMMONS, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus DOUGLAS DRETKE, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6-02-CV-33

-------------------- Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Leon Lee Sammons, Texas prisoner # 896479, was convicted of aggravated robbery by a jury and sentenced to 60 years in prison. Sammons appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application. Sammons argues that the prosecutor commented on his decision not to testify. Assuming that the argument was a comment on Sammons’s failure to testify, the comment must be viewed in the context of the trial and reversal is not warrantedNo. 02-41236 -2- unless the improper comment had a "clear effect on the jury." United States v. Montoya-Ortiz , 7 F.3d 1171, 1179 (5th Cir. 1993). Curative instructions are considered in analyzing whether an improper remark constitutes reversible error. See United States v. Anchondo-Sandoval , 910 F.2d 1234, 1237 (5th Cir. 1990). The trial court sustained the objection to the argument and instructed the jury to disregard it. Juries are presumed to follow the instructions of the court. See Zafiro v. United
States , 506 U.S. 534, 540-41 (1993). Additionally, the evidence of Sammons’s guilt is overwhelming. Sammons has not shown that the district court erred in concluding that the state court’s denial of relief on this issue was contrary to clearly established federal law or was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Williams v. Taylor , 529 U.S. 362, 409 (2000); Beazley v. Johnson , 242 F.3d 248, 255 (5th Cir. 2001). Sammons moves for the appointment of appellate counsel. Sammons represented himself adequately in having this court grant his motion for a certificate of appealability (COA). His brief on the issue of the prosecutor’s comment regarding his failure to testify is more than adequate in presenting the claim.
See Schwander v. Blackburn , 750 F.2d 494, 502 (5th Cir. 1985). Sammons’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
FILED: November 8, 2018

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

___________________

No. 17-1320

(7:16-cv-00095-GEC)

___________________

BRYAN MANNING; RYAN WILLIAMS; RICHARD DECKERHOFF; 

RICHARD EUGENE WALLS

 Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

DONALD CALDWELL, Commonwealth's Attorney for the City of Roanoke; 

MICHAEL NEHEMIAH HERRING, Commonwealth's Attorney for the City of 

Richmond

 Defendants - Appellees

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

NATIONAL LAW CENTER ON HOMELESSNESS & POVERTY

 Amicus Supporting Appellant

___________________

O R D E R

___________________

A majority of judges in regular active service and not disqualified have voted 

to order rehearing en banc in this case. The parties shall file 16 additional paper 

copies of their briefs and appendices previously filed in this case by November 30, 
2018. This case is scheduled for oral argument before the en banc court on January 

30, 2019.

For the Court

/s/ Patricia S. Connor, Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6863

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JERMAINE LATIMER MCKIVER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:12-cr-00071-WO-1)

Submitted: November 30, 2018 Decided: January 3, 2019

Before KEENAN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jermaine Latimer McKiver, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jermaine Latimer McKiver seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying McKiver’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) 

motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 (2012) 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) (2012); Reid v. Angelone, 369 

F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004), abrogated in part by United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 

392, 400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015). 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) 

(2012). 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 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 McKiver has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.1


Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of Colonial Properties Trust, our
general partner, hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:

(a)           the Form 10-Q of Colonial Realty Limited Partnership for the
              period ended March 31, 2004 filed on the date hereof with the
              Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report) fully complies
              with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
              Exchange Act of 1934; and

(b)           information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
              material respects, the financial condition and results of
              operations of Colonial Realty Limited Partnership.




/s/   Thomas H. Lowder
-------------------------
      Thomas H. Lowder
      Chief Executive Officer
      May 7, 2004