alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### David MEYERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Edward WRIGHT, Warden; G.E.O. Inc; Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 16-6886

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 25, 2016

Decided: November 21, 2016

David Meyers, Appellant Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KEENAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

David Meyers appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition without prejudice for failing to comply with a court order. We affirm.

A district court may dismiss an action based on a plaintiffs failure to comply with any order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Where a litigant has ignored an express warning that noncompliance with a court order will result in dismissal, the district court should dismiss the case. See Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95-96 (4th Cir. 1989). We review a decision to dismiss for failure to comply with a court order for abuse of discretion. Id.

*807We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we grant Meyers leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm the district court’s order. 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
Exhibit 32

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 this quarterly report of Nanophase Technologies Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ending March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jess A. Jankowski, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Frank Cesario, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to our 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 result of operations of
the Company.

Date: May 11, 2010



/s/ JESS JANKOWSKIJess JankowskiChief Executive Officer/s/ FRANK CESARIOFrank CesarioChief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
       
<S>                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                  Jan-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                    Jun-30-1997
<CASH>                                               91,058
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                             0
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    591,962
<PP&E>                                            1,194,254
<DEPRECIATION>                                      956,886
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      883,440
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               909,476
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                                  0
<OTHER-SE>                                                0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        883,440
<SALES>                                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     89,775
<CGS>                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   44,221
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (210,057)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (210,057)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                              0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                             0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             0
                                            

</TABLE>
Michael E. HARVEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4822

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 3, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph Hal KINLAW, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-4858

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 30, 2017

Decided: September 7, 2017

Louis C. Allen, Acting Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Hal Kinlaw, Jr., seeks to appeal his conviction and sentence, and his counsel has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal as barred by Kinlaw’s waiver of the right to appeal included in the plea agreement. Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude that Kinlaw knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal. Accordingly, we grant in part the Government’s motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal as to the sentencing and restitution issues raised by Kinlaw on appeal because those issues fall within the scope of the waiver. We also deny in part the Government’s motion with regard to any claims that cannot be waived by a plea agreement, including Kinlaw’s pro se claims that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the case and that his attorney was ineffective. *See United States v. Johnson,*410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. *1782005) (recognizing that certain claims cannot be waived by plea agreement). We conclude that the district court had jurisdiction, *see*18 U.S.C. § 1344 (2012), and, we decline to review the conclusory ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal, *see United States v. Faulls,*821 F.3d 502, 507-08 (4th Cir. 2016) (providing standard).

In accordance with *Anders,*we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal that áre outside of the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal in part and affirm the district court’s judgment as to any issue not precluded by the appeal waiver. We deny Kinlaw’s pro se motions to participate in oral argument and for release or bail pending appeal. This court requires that counsel inform Kinlaw, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Kinlaw requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Kinlaw.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions áre adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART*
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANTTO RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b)**

**OFTHE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the Annual Report ofRentrak Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31,2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Mark L. Thoenes, Senior Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best ofmy knowledge:

 

(1) The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934; and

 

(2) The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| By:                         | /s/ Mark L. Thoenes |   |
|-----------------------------|---------------------|--------|
| Mark L. Thoenes             |
| Senior Vice President       |
| and Chief Financial Officer |
| Rentrak Corporation         |
| June 13, 2005          |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000883476
<NAME> CRESCENT BANKING COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           3,717
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             325
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                13,850
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               126,909
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      7,049
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           7,165
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             7,049
<LOANS>                                         47,264
<ALLOWANCE>                                        836
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 219,926
<DEPOSITS>                                     117,222
<SHORT-TERM>                                    78,255
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              8,536
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,742
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,172
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 219,926
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  2,231
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  186
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   181
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 8,265
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,294
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,403
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            3,862
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      150
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 10,578
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,138,315
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   3,138,315
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,977,608
<EPS-BASIC>                                     1.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.09
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    9.28
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                       649
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  3,038
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   699
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       14
<RECOVERIES>                                         1
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  836
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               836
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             60


</TABLE>
#### Tito KNOX, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Elena KLIMBAL, PMHNPPC; Officer Graham, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1620

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 17, 2017

Decided: August 21, 2017

Tito Lemont Knox, Appellant Pro Se.

Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tito Lemont Knox seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint for failing to state a claim. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because the deficiencies identified by the district court could be remedied by the filing of an amended complaint, we conclude that the order Knox seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an ap-pealable interlocutory or collateral order. *See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union*392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow Knox to file an amended complaint. *See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc.,*807 F.3d 619, 623-24 (4th Cir. 2015). 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 AND REMANDED*
Michael LEASE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4741

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 23, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

The record on appeal is still on file in this court and was reviewed in addressing petitioner's petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

Petitioner's petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied.

SILBERMAN, KELLY, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1403 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to reissue a final rule relating to 

removing the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem population of grizzly bears 

from the Federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 26, 2021 

Ms. CHENEY (for herself and Mr. SIMPSON) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to reissue a final 

rule relating to removing the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem population of grizzly bears from the Federal list 

of endangered and threatened wildlife. 

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 ‘‘Grizzly Bear State 

5 Management Act of 2021’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1403 IH

1 SEC. 2. REISSUANCE OF FINAL RULE RELATING TO GREAT2 ER YELLOWSTONE ECOSYSTEM POPULATION 

3 OF GRIZZLY BEARS. 

4 Not later than 180 days after the date of the enact5 ment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall reissue 

6 the final rule relating to removing the Greater Yellowstone 

7 Ecosystem population of grizzly bears from the Federal 

8 List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, published on 

9 June 30, 2017 (82 Fed. Reg. 30502), without regard to 

10 any other provision of statute or regulation that applies 

11 to issuance of such rule. Such reissuance (including this 

12 section) shall not be subject to judicial review. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Deshawn R. PERKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-453

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 27, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Nicklous Travis ANDERSON, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Julie L. JONES, etc., et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1955

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

OCTOBER 11, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Joshua Patrick TURNER v. STATE

CR-15-1133

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 3, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

LENWARD W. PULLIAM, JR., : Case No. 1:18-cv-348 

:

Petitioner, : Judge Timothy S. Black 

 : 

vs. : Magistrate Judge Litkovitz 

 : 

WARDEN, LONDON CORRECTIONAL : 

INSTITUTION, : 

 : 

Respondent. : 

DECISION AND ENTRY 

ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 13) 

AND TERMINATING THIS CASE IN THIS COURT 

This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to 

United States Magistrate Judge Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate 

Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on November 12, 2019, submitted 

a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 214). No objections were filed.1

 As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has 

reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo 

all of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court does 

determine that the Report and Recommendation should be and is hereby ADOPTED in 

its entirety. 

1 Petitioner filed a “Supplemental to the October 10th, 2018, Objection to the R&R” on October 22, 2018 

(Doc. 12). In reality, Petitioner’s filing of October 22, 2018 was a supplement to his response to the 

Respondent’s Return of Writ. It was not an “Objection to the R&R” because the Report and 

Recommendation (Doc.13) was not even entered by the Magistrate Judge until November 12, 2019, more 

than a year after Petitioner’s filing.
2

Accordingly:

1. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as it is time-barred 

pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 2241(d)(1).

 2. A certificate of appealability should not issue with respect to any of the claims for

relief alleged in the petition, which this Court has concluded are barred from 

review on a procedural ground, because under the first prong of the applicable 

two-part standard enunciated in Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000), 

"jurists of reason" would not find it debatable whether the Court is correct in its 

procedural ruling. 

3. With respect to any application by petitioner to proceed on appeal informa 

pauperis, the Court should certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § l 915(a)(3) that an 

appeal of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendation would not be 

taken in "good faith," and therefore DENY petitioner leave to appeal informa 

pauperis upon a showing of financial necessity. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a); 

Kincade v. Sparkman, 117 F.3d 949, 952 (6th Cir. 1997).

4. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, whereupon this case is terminated and 

closed in this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: December 17, 2019 s/ Timothy S. Black

 Timothy S. Black

 United States District Judge
#### Brenda M. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ELECTRONIC TRANSACTION CONSULTANTS CORPORATION, AKA ETCC; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-35959

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*536Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed February 23, 2017

Brenda M. Johnson, Pro Se

Robert R. King, Attorney, Teruyuki Scott Olsen, Attorney, Ryan, Swanson & Cleveland, PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed, R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Brenda M. Johnson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in her employment action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the imposition of discovery sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, *Payne v. Exxon Corp.,*121 F.3d 503, 507 (9th Cir. 1997), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Johnson’s action as a discovery sanction because Johnson failed to comply with multiple orders compelling her to appear for her deposition. *See id.*at 507-08 (setting forth factors to be considered before granting dismissal under Rule 37(b)). We reject as unsupported by the record Johnson’s contention that she did not receive notice of the court’s order scheduling Johnson’s deposition or of the December 7, 2015 hearing on defendant’s motion for sanctions.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

We reject as unsupported by the record Johnson’s contentions that she was improperly denied counsel, copies of transcripts, or a speedy trial.

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,
Exhibit 99.8



Certification of Chief Executive Officer
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 filing of this
Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 (the “Report”)
by New Gold Inc. (the “Company”), I, Robert J. Gallagher, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of
my knowledge that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: May 27, 2015





\









/s/ Robert Gallagher_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Robert J. Gallagher
Chief Executive Officer