alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1:18-cv-541Case: 1:18-cv-00541-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/03/18 Page: 1 of 14 PAGEID #: 1Case: 1:18-cv-00541-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/03/18 Page: 2 of 14 PAGEID #: 2Case: 1:18-cv-00541-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/03/18 Page: 3 of 14 PAGEID #: 3Case: 1:18-cv-00541-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/03/18 Page: 4 of 14 PAGEID #: 4Case: 1:18-cv-00541-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/03/18 Page: 5 of 14 PAGEID #: 5Case: 1:18-cv-00541-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/03/18 Page: 6 of 14 PAGEID #: 6Case: 1:18-cv-00541-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/03/18 Page: 7 of 14 PAGEID #: 7Case: 1:18-cv-00541-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/03/18 Page: 8 of 14 PAGEID #: 8Case: 1:18-cv-00541-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/03/18 Page: 9 of 14 PAGEID #: 9Case: 1:18-cv-00541-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/03/18 Page: 10 of 14 PAGEID #: 10Case: 1:18-cv-00541-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/03/18 Page: 11 of 14 PAGEID #: 11Case: 1:18-cv-00541-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/03/18 Page: 12 of 14 PAGEID #: 12Case: 1:18-cv-00541-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/03/18 Page: 13 of 14 PAGEID #: 13Case: 1:18-cv-00541-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/03/18 Page: 14 of 14 PAGEID #: 14
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6938

DOUGLAS ROY SYMMES, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

Respondent - Appellant.

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

Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:22-cv-00235-WO-JEP)

Submitted: February 22, 2024 Decided: February 27, 2024

Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Douglas Roy Symmes, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6938 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/27/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Douglas Roy Symmes, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Symmes’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment 

of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 

(2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 

134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Symmes 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

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6938 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/27/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
Exhibit
      32.2


**CERTIFICATIONS
      PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**




In
      connection with the Annual Report of ERHC Energy Inc., a Colorado corporation
      (the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2007, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Sylvan Odobulu,
      Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant
      to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), 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 result of operations of the Company.






/s/    Sylvan
                OdobuluSylvan
                Odobulu
              Principal
                Accounting Officer
              December
                14, 2007




[A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      ERHC Energy Inc. and will be retained by ERHC Energy Inc. and furnished to
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
Exhibit 32.2

                      ONCOLOGIX TECH, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES


                           CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL
                          FINANCIAL 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  Annual  Report  of  Oncologix  Tech,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2009, as filed with
the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I
Michael A. Kramarz, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

     (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.


                                            /s/  Michael A. Kramarz
                                            -----------------------------------
                                                 Michael A. Kramarz
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
     March 17, 2010
Jon Michael ROWLAND, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Janice Rowland, his wife, Appellant, v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS, INC., a Foreign Corporation, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-331

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 14, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Louis Manuel VALLE, Appellee.

No. 4D17-1310

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 19, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### Samir Allen FARHOUMAND, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Director, Virginia Dep’t of Corr., Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6238

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 31, 2017

Decided: September 13, 2017

Jonathan P. Sheldon, SHELDON, FLOOD *&*HAYWOOD, PLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Benjamin Hyman Katz, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Samir Allen Farhoumand 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 ap-pealability. *See*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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Farhoumand has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with *201oral 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*
Joseph FILIPPONE, Petitioner, v. CITY OF TAMPA, Respondent.

Case No. 2D17-3648

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Grant NUNN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-5341

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 19, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

DISMISSED.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America ON BEHALF OF the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2607

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### Dr. Die K. BLAISE, Pharm. D, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. Sandra HARRIS, Pharm. D; Vibra Hospital of Richmond, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1377

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2017

Decided: July 31, 2017

*138Die K. Blaise, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin D. Holden, JACKSON LEWIS PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Die K. Blaise appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his civil employment action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Blaise v. Harris,*No. 3:16-cv-00023-REP, 2017 WL 889622, 2016 WL 4265748(E.D. Va., Aug. 11, 2016 & Mar. 6, 2017). 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*
EX PARTE James Lenwood ROBINSON

CR-16-0091

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 1, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
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 Immtech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Eric L. Sorkin, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:






1)
            the
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
                and




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




/s/
      Eric L.
      Sorkin


Eric
      L.
      Sorkin


President
      & Chief Executive Officer


November
      8, 2007
Christopher MYLES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-1238

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed October 4, 2017

Christopher Myles, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, LOGUE and LINDSEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Patricia DAWKINS, Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 1D17-750

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 3, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
### Exhibit 31.2

### Certification under Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) of

### William N. Hagler, President, Director

I, William N. Hagler, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of
Intermountain Refining Co., Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue statement of material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;
4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I
are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
small business issuer and have:

> Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
> such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
> ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, is made
> known to us by others within the entity, particularly during the period in which
> this report is being prepared;
> Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's
> disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
> about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
> of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
> Disclosed in this report any change in the small business
> issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
> small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or
> is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's control
> over financial reporting; and

1. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I
have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the small
business issuer's board of directors:

> All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
> design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
> reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to
> record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
> Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
> or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's
> internal control over financial
> reporting.

Date: May 22,
2007/s/_William N.
Hagler________William N. Hagler, President,
Director
SERVED: JANUARY 3, 2011 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ; f OPERATIONS 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC •! ! f •M - U A ^: 3 b 

IN THE MATTER OF 

NEBO AVIATION SERVICES, LLC 

FAA DOCKET NO. CPIOEAOO12 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2010-1078 

ORDER OF CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

ESTABLISHING PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE 

On December 17, 2010, Respondent's Counsel filed a Joint Proposed Procedural Schedule. 

Respondent's Counsel states that Complainant's Counsel "has consented" to submission of the 

proposed schedule "on behalf of both parties." Accordingly, 

. IT IS ORDERED THAT— 

1. The proposed dates contained in Respondent's Case Management Schedule are 

adopted for these proceedings; and 

2. Any hearing will be held in Fort Myers, Florida, at a time and place to be set by a 

later order. 

SO ORDERED. 

R6rmie A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative Law 

Attachment - Service List 
FAA Docket No. CP10EA0012 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC^30 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Gregory S. Winton, Respondent's Counsel 

The Aviation Law Firm 

One Research Court, Suite 450 

Rockville, MD 20850 

TEL: 301-294-8550 

FAX: 301-294-2525 

Stephen W. Brice, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, Eastern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

TEL: 718-553-3268 

FAX: 716-995-5699 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder, Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20, Room El 2-320 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2142 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
N.P., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Joseph SEEBER, Superintendent, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0813

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Grant. Quash.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS OF CEO AND CFO 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 on Form 10-Q of Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended March 31,
2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company 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 the best of 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 operations of the Company.

Dated: May 13, 2009



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/ GEORGE R. AYLWARD                          
|George R. Aylward                              
|President, Chief Executive Officer and Director



|                        
|------------------------
|/s/ MICHAEL A. ANGERTHAL
|Michael A. Angerthal    
|Chief Financial Officer 



7
Davarius Antawn DURHAM, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0767

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32

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

      I, Russell P. Fradin, the Chief Executive Officer of The BISYS Group, Inc.
(the "Company"), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Form 10-Q of
the Company for the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2004 (the "Form 10-Q"),
which this certification accompanies, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
78o(d)) and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated: February 9, 2005

                                               /s/ Russell P. Fradin
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Russell P. Fradin

<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32

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

      I, James L. Fox, the Chief Financial Officer of The BISYS Group, Inc. (the
"Company"), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Form 10-Q of
the Company for the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2004 (the "Form 10-Q"),
which this certification accompanies, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
78o(d)) and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated: February 9, 2005

                                               /s/ James L. Fox
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               James L. Fox
#### Christopher STOLLER, Appellant v. OCWEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, et al., Appellees

No. 16-7140

September Term, 2016

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Filed On: February 28, 2017

Rehearing En Banc Denied May 4, 2017

Christopher Stoller, Pro Se

BEFORE: Rogers and Kavanaugh, Circuit Judges, and Ginsburg, Senior Circuit Judge

*11JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(3). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order, filed November 10, 2016, dismissing the complaint be affirmed. “[W]e may affirm the district court on any ground supported by the record.” Chambers v. Burwell, 824 F.3d 141, 143 (D.C. Cir. 2016). The district court correctly held that appellant’s request for injunctive relief was rendered moot by the foreclosure and sale of his house on December 28, 2015. See Kessler v. Surface Transp. Bd., 637 F.3d 369, 372 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (quoting Bunn v. Werner, 210 F.2d 730, 731 (D.C. Cir. 1954)) (“injunction filed to prevent ‘a foreclosure sale of certain real estate’ dismissed as moot after foreclosure sale had taken place”).

To the extent that any other claims remain, the district court correctly declined to exercise jurisdiction inasmuch as the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over any of the defendants. “The District of Columbia long-arm statute provides that a District of Columbia court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant if the *claim arises from*the defendant’s transacting any business in the District of Columbia.” Helmer v. Doletskaya, 393 F.3d 201, 205 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (emphasis added). None of the individual appellees is a resident of the District of Columbia, appellee . Ocwen Financial Corporation does not have its principal place of business in the District of Columbia, and appellant has not demonstrated that his particular claim arises from any contacts the defendants had with the District of Columbia.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.