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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-8008

MARTY TARRELL GASTON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

SECRETARY OF THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,

Chief District Judge. (3:15-cv-00126-FDW)

Submitted: December 1, 2016 Decided: December 6, 2016

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marty Tarrell Gaston, Appellant Pro Se. Jess D. Mekeel, NORTH 

CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Marty Tarrell Gaston seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on 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 

Gaston 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 because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# C_2016319EN.01000201.xml

| 31.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

30 August 2016

(2016/C 319/02)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1168 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 114,27 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4448 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85170 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,5008 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0951 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,2873 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,025 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 308,97 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3436 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4505 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,2977 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4787 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4562 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,6631 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5427 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5196 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 244,47 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,0537 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,4565 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4846 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 814,35 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5205 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 51,797 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 72,4564 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,608 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,5991 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,7542 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 74,8703 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1168

JPY

Japanese yen

114,27

DKK

Danish krone

7,4448

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85170

SEK

Swedish krona

9,5008

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0951

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,2873

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,025

HUF

Hungarian forint

308,97

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3436

RON

Romanian leu

4,4505

TRY

Turkish lira

3,2977

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4787

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4562

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,6631

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5427

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5196

KRW

South Korean won

1 244,47

ZAR

South African rand

16,0537

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,4565

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4846

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 814,35

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5205

PHP

Philippine peso

51,797

RUB

Russian rouble

72,4564

THB

Thai baht

38,608

BRL

Brazilian real

3,5991

MXN

Mexican peso

20,7542

INR

Indian rupee

74,8703

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
# C_2016336EN.01000401.xml

| 13.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 336/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/4

---

Calls for proposals under the work programme for grants in the field of the trans-European telecommunication networks under the Connecting Europe Facility for the period 2014-2020

(Commission Implementing Decision C(2016) 1225)

(2016/C 336/05)

The European Commission, Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, is hereby launching four calls for proposals in order to award grants to projects in accordance with the priorities and objectives defined in the 2016 work programme in the field of the trans-European telecommunication networks under the Connecting Europe Facility for the period 2014-2020.

Proposals are invited for the following four calls:

| | CEF-TC-2016-3: Automated Translation |
| --- | --- |

CEF-TC-2016-3: Automated Translation

| | CEF-TC-2016-3: Cyber Security |
| --- | --- |

CEF-TC-2016-3: Cyber Security

| | CEF-TC-2016-3: eInvoicing |
| --- | --- |

CEF-TC-2016-3: eInvoicing

| | CEF-TC-2016-3: Europeana |
| --- | --- |

CEF-TC-2016-3: Europeana

The total indicative budget available for proposals selected under these calls is EUR 27,5 million.

The deadline for the submission of proposals is 15 December 2016.

15 December 2016.

The respective call documentation is available on the CEF Telecom website: https://ec.europa.eu/inea/en/connecting-europe-facility/cef-telecom/apply-funding/2016-cef-telecom-calls-proposals

---
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

G.C., )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D19-2082

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed September 9, 2020.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk

County; Melissa Gravitt, Judge, and 

Mark Hofstad, Senior Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, 

and Carly J. Robbins-Gilbert, Assistant 

Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Pamela Cordova 

Papasov, Assistant Attorney General, 

Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

CASANUEVA, SILBERMAN, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
EXHIBIT 32.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the Annual Report of NeoMedia Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
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 to his knowledge:

      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: May 13, 2005                              By: /s/ David A. Dodge
                                                Name:  David A. Dodge
                                                Title: Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to NeoMedia Technologies,
Inc. and will be retained by NeoMedia Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FILED AS PART OF THIS FORM 10-QSB AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                              11
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      336
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (38)
<INVENTORY>                                         13
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   360
<PP&E>                                           1,265
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (560)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,245
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,149
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            16
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,556)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,169
<SALES>                                          1,607
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,683
<CGS>                                              188
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,793
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   464
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  96
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,858)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         2
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,859)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,859)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.24)


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

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 14, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-60624

Summary Calendar

MAURICIO ALBERTO MELENDEZ-PARADA,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

(A97 831 423)

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mauricio Alberto Melendez-Parada, a citizen of El Salvador,

petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (BIA) affirming, without a written opinion, the decision of

the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his application for asylum and

withholding of removal. Although we ordinarily have authority to

review only the BIA’s decision, we review the IJ’s decision where,

as here, the BIA affirms the IJ’s decision without an opinion.

E.g., Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997).
2

Melendez-Parada concedes the IJ correctly found his past

mistreatment by the MS gang in El Salvador did not rise to the

level of persecution. He contends the IJ erred, however, by

failing to consider the probability of, and possible motivations

for, future persecution.

Melendez-Parada does not meet his burden of showing, or even

allege, fear of persecution based on his race, religion,

nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political

opinion, as is required to obtain asylum. See Majd v. Gonzales,

446 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir. 2006). Rather, he seeks relief based

on his past encounters with a criminal gang and his fear of future

such encounters. 

The record indicates Melendez-Parada’s fear of persecution is

based solely on gang violence in his college town in El Salvador.

“[A]n applicant’s fear of persecution cannot be based solely on

general violence and civil disorder.” Id. (quoting Eduard v.

Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 188 (5th Cir. 2004)) (alteration in

original). Moreover, because the standard of proof required to

establish eligibility for withholding of removal is higher than

that required for asylum, “failure to establish eligibility for

asylum is dispositive of claims for withholding of removal”. Id.

PETITION DENIED
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-13-00851-CR

George GALVAN,

Appellant

v.

The State of 

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CR9427

Honorable Maria Teresa Herr, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 9, 2014

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED

After the trial court denied his motion to suppress, appellant pled no contest, pursuant to a 

plea bargain, to aggravated robbery and was sentenced in accordance with the plea bargain. 

Appellant’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of 

the record and demonstrating there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Counsel concludes 

the appeal is without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 

738 (1967). Appellant was informed of his right to review the record and of his right to file a pro 

se brief. Appellant did not file a pro se brief.
04-13-00851-CR

After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree the appeal is frivolous and without 

merit. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment, and we GRANT appellate counsel’s 

motion to withdraw.1 Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no 

pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). 

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Do not publish

1

 No substitute counsel will be appointed. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 n.22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). 

Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, appellant must 

either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. 

Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last 

timely motion for rehearing that is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary 

review must be filed with Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX.R. APP. P. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary 

review must comply with the requirements of Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 68.4. 

- 2 -
# C_2015305EN.01000301.xml

| 16.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 305/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

15 September 2015

(2015/C 305/04)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1320 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 135,44 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4609 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,73460 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3277 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0971 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,2565 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,088 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 312,48 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2011 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4207 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,4298 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5885 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4984 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,7731 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7877 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5849 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 335,54 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,2568 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,2107 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5623 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 325,95 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,8587 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 52,887 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 75,4818 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,695 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,3486 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,9457 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 75,1238 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1320

JPY

Japanese yen

135,44

DKK

Danish krone

7,4609

GBP

Pound sterling

0,73460

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3277

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0971

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,2565

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,088

HUF

Hungarian forint

312,48

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2011

RON

Romanian leu

4,4207

TRY

Turkish lira

3,4298

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5885

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4984

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,7731

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7877

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5849

KRW

South Korean won

1 335,54

ZAR

South African rand

15,2568

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,2107

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5623

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 325,95

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,8587

PHP

Philippine peso

52,887

RUB

Russian rouble

75,4818

THB

Thai baht

40,695

BRL

Brazilian real

4,3486

MXN

Mexican peso

18,9457

INR

Indian rupee

75,1238

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
# C_2014277EN.01000201.xml

| 22.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 277/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

21 August 2014

2014/C 277/02

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3262 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 137,71 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4556 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,79925 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1695 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2109 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,1630 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,814 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 314,18 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1891 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4130 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,8910 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4283 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4540 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,2781 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5829 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6581 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 356,31 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,1937 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,1613 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6243 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 499,54 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,2064 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,137 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 48,1708 |
| THB | Thai baht | 42,412 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,9979 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,3845 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 80,4619 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3262

JPY

Japanese yen

137,71

DKK

Danish krone

7,4556

GBP

Pound sterling

0,79925

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1695

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2109

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,1630

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,814

HUF

Hungarian forint

314,18

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1891

RON

Romanian leu

4,4130

TRY

Turkish lira

2,8910

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4283

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4540

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,2781

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5829

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6581

KRW

South Korean won

1 356,31

ZAR

South African rand

14,1937

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,1613

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6243

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 499,54

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,2064

PHP

Philippine peso

58,137

RUB

Russian rouble

48,1708

THB

Thai baht

42,412

BRL

Brazilian real

2,9979

MXN

Mexican peso

17,3845

INR

Indian rupee

80,4619

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
p. 1



# SOLVAY Q SOLEXIS



# f-1

October 28, 2010 VIA COURIER OPPT Document Control Office (DCO) The United States Environmental Protection Agency EPAEast Building, Room 6428 1201 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 RE : SOLVAY SOLEXIS, INC . 2010/2015 PFOA STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM DOCKET ID NUMBER EPA-HQ-OPPT-2006-0621 In response to industry's participation with the USEPA EPA 2010/15 PFOA Stewardship Program, Solvay Solexis, Inc. hereby submits the year 2009 data for emissions and product content of PFOA and related higher homologues. This submission contains confidential business information and Solvay Solexis, Inc. expects it to be managed accordingly. As such, one original and one sanitized paper copy is included in the submission. In addition, electronic copies of the original and sanitized documents are enclosed. If you have any questions or require additional information concerning this submittal, please contact me at (856) 251-3409. Sincerely, Charles M

. Jones Director, HR Enclosures

Solvay Solexis, Inc. 10 Leonard Lane, Thorofare, NJ 08086 856.853.8119 Fax: 856 .853.6405 www .solvaysolexi, .com 

# IIIIIIIIIIIIIVIIIIINIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIYIIIIII

c^ .~;mocei r .

. c ., : :~ up _, "1



## 0
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1310

FREDDIE J. KELLY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SUNTRUST BANK; EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC; EXPERIAN; 

TRANSUNION,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., 

District Judge. (3:14-cv-00121-JAG)

Submitted: October 31, 2016 Decided: December 2, 2016

Before KING, SHEDD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Freddie J. Kelly, Appellant Pro Se. Terry Catherine Frank, 

KAUFMAN & CANOLES, PC, Richmond, Virginia; John Willard 

Montgomery, Jr., MONTGOMERY & SIMPSON, LLLP, Richmond, Virginia; 

Jennifer Loraine Swize, JONES DAY, Washington, D.C.; Paul L. 

Myers, STRASBURGER & PRICE, LLP, Frisco, Texas; Michael R. Ward, 

MORRIS & MORRIS, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Freddie J. Kelly appeals the district court’s order 

granting Defendants’ motions for summary judgment. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Kelly 

v. SunTrust Bank, No. 3:14-cv-00121-JAG (E.D. Va. Feb. 25, 

2016). 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.

AFFIRMED
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

s1121

Order 

Clerk

November 30, 2016

151627

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 151627

COA: 325543

Menominee CC: 11-003384-FH;

11-003385-FH

RICHARD WILLIAM JACQUES, Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 4, 2015 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to 

meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).