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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6791

KASHEEM NUNNALLY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE, Director,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Roderick Charles Young, 

Magistrate Judge. (3:15-cv-00327-RCY)

Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 29, 2016

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kasheem Nunnally, Appellant Pro Se. Aaron Jennings Campbell, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kasheem Nunnally seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order*

dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 

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 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 

Nunnally has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument 

 * The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate 

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012).
3

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 November 23, 2016

s1116

Order 

Clerk

November 23, 2016

151173

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 151173

COA: 324779

Kent CC: 14-000623-FH

NAJEE SHARIF WILKINS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 16, 2015 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

2016 WY 114

 October Term, A.D. 2016

November 30, 2016

KENNETH EUGENE 

CHRISTOPHER,

Appellant

(Defendant),

v.

THE STATE OF WYOMING,

Appellee

(Plaintiff).

S-16-0166

ORDER AFFIRMING THE DISTRICT COURT’S JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE

[¶1] This matter came before the Court upon “Appellant[’s] Pro Se Brief,” which was 

filed herein November 17, 2016. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant entered 

unconditional guilty pleas to two counts of sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree. 

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-314(a)(ii). The district court imposed a sentence of 30 to 40 years

on each count, with the sentences to run concurrently. Appellant filed this appeal to 

challenge the district court’s May 27, 2016, “Judgment and Sentence.”

[¶2] On August 17, 2016, Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a 

“Motion to Withdraw as Counsel,” pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 

87 S.Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). The next day, this Court entered an “Order 

Granting Motion for Extension of Time to File Pro Se Brief.” This Court ordered that

Appellant “may file with this Court a pro se brief specifying the issues he would like this

Court to consider in this appeal.” This Court also provided notice that, after the time for 

filing a pro se brief expired, this Court would “make its ruling on counsel’s motion to 

withdraw and, if appropriate, make a final decision on this appeal.” Appellant 

subsequently filed his pro se brief.

[¶3] Now, following a careful review of the record, “Appellant[’s] Pro Se Brief,” and 

the “Anders brief” submitted by appellate counsel, this Court finds that appellate 
counsel’s motion to withdraw should be granted and the district court’s May 27, 2016, 

“Judgment and Sentence” should be affirmed. This Court finds that Appellant’s pro se

brief is not supported by pertinent authority. 

[¶4] Finally, this Court finds it should order the district court to enter an amended 

Judgment and Sentence, one that complies with W.R.Cr.P. 32(c)(2)(B). That rule 

requires that the written sentence “state whether multiple sentences are to run 

concurrently or consecutively.” Here, although the district court orally pronounced that 

Appellant’s sentences are to run concurrently, that pronouncement is not documented in 

the “Judgment and Sentence.” It is, therefore, 

[¶5] ORDERED that the Wyoming Public Defender’s Office, court-appointed counsel 

for Appellant, Kenneth Eugene Christopher, is hereby permitted to withdraw as counsel 

of record for Appellant; and it is further

[¶6] ORDERED that the district court’s May 27, 2016, “Judgment and Sentence” be, 

and the same hereby is, affirmed; and it is further

[¶7] ORDERED that, consistent with paragraph 4 of this order, this matter is 

remanded to the district court for entry of an amended Judgment and Sentence.

[¶8] DATED this 30

th day of November, 2016.

BY THE COURT:

/s/

E. JAMES BURKE

Chief Justice
#### FRANKFORT BANK *vs.*COUNTRYMAN.

APPEAL PROM COuNTV COURT, GREEN LAKE COUNTY.

Heard January 13.]

[Decided June 4, 1860.

*Indorser*— Pleadings—Frivolousness—Practice.

In an notion upon a promissory note against the indorser, the complaint alleged that the note “was duly presented,” *&e,,*that the same was *“*duly protested for nonpayment,” and “notice thereof duly given:” Held that such averments were sufficient under the Code.

When judgment has been entered on motion for frivolousness of the demurrer, to a complaint on a promissory note, judgment may be entered by the clerk without notice to assess damages.

*Platt vs. Robinson*considered and approved.

This was an action upon a promissory note by Wm. J. Frank, and indorsed by the defendant to the plaintiff. The *399facts will be sufficiently gathered from the opinion of the court.

. *0 .W. Holmes,*for the appellant.

*Geo. B. Judd,*for the respondent.

*By the Court,*

Cole, J.

We think that this judgment should be affirmed. An examination of the complaint will show that the first and second grounds of the demurrer are not true in point of fact. The complaint does allege that the appellant indorsed the note for value to the bank. The third objection taken to the complaint is, that it no where appears therein, that the payment of the note was demanded at the place where the same was made payable, namely, the Frankfort Bank, &c. It is true the complaint states that the note was made payable at that bank; and it alleges that payment of the note was duly demanded at maturity,” and that the same was thereupon *“*protested for non-payment,” and *“*notice thereof duly given” to the appellant. This manner of stating the demand of payment, and the notice of the demand and non-payment, to the indorser, has been held to be sufficient in New York, since the adoption of the code, and we have no doubt but those decisions are in conformity to the spirit of that enactment. *Gay vs. Paine et al.,*5 How. Pr. 107; *Adams vs. Sherrill et al.,*14 id., 297; *Prindle vs. Caruthers,*15 N. Y., 425; *Keteltas vs. Meyers,*19 id., 231. We are disposed to follow these decisions upon this point, and to hold that such a general statement of the performance of the conditions precedent to a party’s right to recover against the indorser, is sufficient. These observations dispose of the fourth and fifth grounds of demurrer.

The appellant insists that he was entitled to notice of assessment of damages, when the respondent moved for judgment on account of the frivolousness of the demurrer. We *400have held otherwise when the complaint was properly verified. *Platt vs. Robinson,*10 Wis., 128. The verrificatio is not set forth in the record sent up to this court, but we assume that it was sufficient to authorize the clerk to ent judgment under sub. 1, section 27, chap. 132, R. S.

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed with costs.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 November 30, 2016

p1121

Order 

Clerk

November 30, 2016

152158(16)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 152158

COA: 326192

Wayne CC: 10-011466-FC

KEVIN MICHAEL-DORMAN BELTOWSKI, Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s July 26, 2016 

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
**Exhibit 32.1****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 DDi Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Mikel H. Williams, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:     1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and     2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.              /s/ MIKEL H. WILLIAMS   Mikel H. Williams   *President and Chief Executive Officer*   Date: August 9,2006
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2489 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2489

   To require the maintenance of the country of origin markings for 
    imported goods produced in the West Bank or Gaza, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 27, 2021

Mr. Cotton (for himself, Mr. Scott of Florida, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Rubio, 
 Mr. Hagerty, and Mrs. Blackburn) introduced the following bill; which 
        was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require the maintenance of the country of origin markings for 
    imported goods produced in the West Bank or Gaza, and for other 
                               purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Anti-BDS Labeling Act''.

SEC. 2. CONTINUATION IN EFFECT OF COUNTRY OF ORIGIN MARKING POLICY FOR 
              IMPORTED GOODS PRODUCED IN THE WEST BANK OR GAZA.

    The policy of the Government of the United States with respect to 
country of origin marking of imported goods produced in the West Bank 
or Gaza, notice of which was published by U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection in the Federal Register on December 23, 2020 (85 Fed. Reg. 
83984), shall remain in effect until repealed by an Act of Congress.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO RESCIND OR CHANGE THE COUNTRY OF 
              ORIGIN MARKING POLICY FOR IMPORTED GOODS PRODUCED IN THE 
              WEST BANK OR GAZA.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the funds 
authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for the 
Department of State or U.S. Customs and Border Protection on or after 
the date of the enactment of this Act may be obligated or expended to 
prepare or promulgate any policy, guidance, regulation, notice, or 
Executive order or to otherwise implement, administer, or enforce any 
policy that rescinds or changes the policy of the Government of the 
United States with respect to country of origin marking of imported 
goods produced in the West Bank or Gaza, notice of which was published 
by U.S. Customs and Border Protection in the Federal Register on 
December 23, 2020 (85 Fed. Reg. 83984).
                                 <all>
```
# C_2016212EN.01000201.xml

| 14.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 212/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8063 — Caixabank/Banco BPI)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 212/03)

On 8 June 2016, 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 English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition 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 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 32016M8063. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8063. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

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

1

---
1999 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

2-11-1999

Securacomm v. Securacom Inc

Precedential or Non-Precedential:

Docket 97-5794

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1999

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 1999 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Securacomm v. Securacom Inc" (1999). 1999 Decisions. Paper 36.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1999/36
 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

 No. 97-5794 

 Securacomm v. Securacomm Inc. 

 The following modifications have been made to the Court's 

opinion issued on January 20, 1999 in the above-entitled appeal 

and will appear as part of the final version of the opinion: 

 

 (1) On page 7, 4th line from the bottom of the page: please 

 change "attorney's" to "attorneys'" 

 

 (2) On page 7, 12th line from the bottom of the page: please 

 delete the word "either" 

 

 (3) On page 11, 3rd line from the bottom of the page: please 

 change "attorney" to "attorneys'" 

 

 (4) On page 12, lines 17-18: please unitalicize the word 

"In"; 

 before "Tommy Hilfiger" please add (in italics as part of the case 

 name) "ISCYRA v." See n.2 on page 10 for proper citation form. 

 

 (5) On page 13, 3rd line of text: please change the word 

 "sufficient" to "insufficient" 

 

 (6) On page 15, 18th line of text: please add a 

"." 

 after the parenthetical. 

 

 (7) On page 15, 23rd line of text: please change 

 the date in the parenthetical from "1995" to "1975" 

 

 /s/ P. Douglas Sisk, 

 Clerk 

February 11, 1999
Exhibit 32.2

 

SOHU.COM INC. 

 

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 Sohu.com Inc. (the “Company”) on Form10-Q/A for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Carol Yu, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adoptedpursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

 

(1) The Reportfully 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 of the Company as of March 31, 2004 and results of operations of the Company for the three months endedMarch 31, 2004.
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2693 

To amend the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 

1992 to authorize additional projects related to the Salton Sea, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 10, 2021 

Mr. PADILLA (for himself and Mrs. FEINSTEIN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 to authorize additional projects 

related to the Salton Sea, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Salton Sea Projects 

5 Improvements Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. RESEARCH PROJECT. 

7 Section 1101 of the Reclamation Projects Authoriza8 tion and Adjustment Act of 1992 (Public Law 102–575; 

9 106 Stat. 4661) is amended— 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2693 IS

1 (1) by redesignating subsections (b) through (d) 

2 as subsections (c) through (e), respectively; 

3 (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the fol4 lowing: 

5 ‘‘(b) ADDITIONAL PROJECT AUTHORITIES.— 

6 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Inte7 rior, acting through the Commissioner of Reclama8 tion, may provide grants and enter into contracts 

9 and cooperative agreements to carry out projects lo10 cated in the area of the Salton Sea in southern Cali11 fornia to improve air quality, fish and wildlife habi12 tat, recreational opportunities, and water quality, in 

13 partnership with— 

14 ‘‘(A) State, Tribal, and local governments; 

15 ‘‘(B) water districts; 

16 ‘‘(C) joint powers authorities, including the 

17 Salton Sea Authority; 

18 ‘‘(D) nonprofit organizations; and 

19 ‘‘(E) institutions of higher education. 

20 ‘‘(2) INCLUDED ACTIVITIES.—The projects de21 scribed in paragraph (1) may include— 

22 ‘‘(A) construction, operation, maintenance, 

23 permitting, and design activities required for 

24 the projects; and 

25 ‘‘(B) dust suppression projects.’’; and 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2693 IS

1 (3) in subsection (e) (as so redesignated), by 

2 striking ‘‘$10,000,000’’ and inserting 

3 ‘‘$250,000,000’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit
10.6 


 


SECURITIES
SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT


 


TO: The
Directors of Bombax Healthcare Acquisition Corporation (the “Company”).


 


The
undersigned hereby subscribes for 1,437,500 Class B ordinary shares (the “Shares”) of the Company. In consideration for the
issue of the Shares, the undersigned hereby agrees and undertakes to pay $25,000 to the Company.


 


The
undersigned agrees to take the Shares subject to the Memorandum & Articles of Association of the Company and authorizes you to enter
the following name and address in the shareholder ledger of the Company:


 


	 	Name:	Bombax Capital Partners Limited
	 	Address:  	Second Floor, Century Yard, Cricket Square
	 		P.O. Box 902
	 		Grand Cayman, KY1-1103
	 		Cayman Islands



 


	BOMBAX CAPITAL PARTNERS LIMITED	 
	 	 	 
	Signed:	/s/ Tak Cheung Yam          	 
	Name:	Tak Cheung Yam	 
	Title:	Director	 



 


Dated: July 2,
2021  




 


Accepted:


 


	BOMBAX HEALTHCARE ACQUISITION CORPORATION
	 	 	 
	Signed:	/s/ Jeffrey Yam          	 
	Name:	Jeffrey Yam	 
	Title:	Chief Executive Officer	 



 





Dated: July 2, 2021
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-18-00230-CV

COLETTE SAVAGE,

Appellant

v.

MARK SAVAGE,

Appellee

From the 66th District Court

Hill County, Texas

Trial Court No. CV219-18DC

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On July 16, 2018, appellant, Colette Savage, filed her notice of appeal in this matter, 

challenging a judgment signed by the trial court on July 6, 2018. In her docketing 

statement, appellant indicated that she filed a motion to reinstate in the trial court; 

however, she did not note when that motion was filed. Because appellant did not 

establish that her motion to reinstate was timely filed in the trial court, and because we 

do not have a Clerk’s Record in this matter, we cannot conclude that Texas Rule of 
Savage v. Savage Page 2

Appellate Procedure 35.1(a) applies, thereby extending the time to file the appellate 

record to within 120 days after the judgment was signed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.1 (noting 

that the appellate record must be filed within sixty days after the judgment is signed, 

unless Rules 26.1(a), (b), or (c) apply). Accordingly, the appellate record was due to be 

filed on September 4, 2018. See id.

On September 10, 2018, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the Clerk’s 

Record has not been filed in this Court because appellant “has failed to pay or make 

arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for preparation of the record.” The Clerk further 

noted that appellant must pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk’s fees and notify 

this Court of the actions taken within twenty-one days of September 10, 2018, or else “this 

appeal may be dismissed for want of prosecution.” 

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 37.3(b) provides that if an appellant fails to pay 

or make arrangements to pay the clerk's fee for preparation of the record, the Court may 

“dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless the appellant was entitled to proceed 

without payment of costs. The court must give the appellant a reasonable opportunity to 

cure before dismissal.” Id. at R. 37.3(b). To date, the record does not reflect that appellant 

has paid or made arrangements to pay for the Clerk's Record or that appellant is entitled 

to proceed without payment of costs. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 37.3(b), we hereby 

dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See id.
Savage v. Savage Page 3

AL SCOGGINS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed October 24, 2018

[CV06]