alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Zeontray Calvin WOODARD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-6973

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 17, 2016

Decided: November 22, 2016

Zeontray Calvin Woodard, Appellant Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*824PER CURIAM:-

Zeontray Calvin Woodard 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 certifícate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(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 Woodard 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 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Deborah Harrison KHATANA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellee, and Jame T. Wynn, Defendant.

No. 17-1357

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 20, 2017

Decided: July 24, 2017

Deborah Harrison Khatana, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Kelly Guss, WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Deborah Harrison Khatana appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants in Khatana’s employment discrimination suit. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the *244appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. *Khatana v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth.,*No. 8:15-cv-01664-PWG, 2017 WL 749233 (D. Md. Feb. 27, 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.

*DISMISSED*
a48settlementagreementda






                                                                         Exhibit 4.8             WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND SUBJECT TO CONTRACT                        SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT   BETWEEN    l.   Nomad  Foods Europe Ltd, 1 New Square, Bedfont Lakes,  Feltham,       Middlesex, TWl 4 SHA ['the Employer') and  2.    Mr Jason Ashton,                                     ('the        Employee').   INTRODUCTION    (A)  The Employee's employment with the Employer will terminate by mutual       agreement with effect from 31 st October 2018 (the 'Termination Date').  (B)   During the period from 301h September 2018 (the 'Garden Leave Date')       until the Termination Date the Employee shall be on garden leave and       period of garden leave shall be referred to as the "Garden leave Period"       in this agreement.  TERMS AGREED   1.    Ongoing employment        Between  now and the Termination Dote the  Employee will perform       services for the Employer within the finance function and continue to be       paid his salary and benefits in the usual way. This includes participation       in the Annual Bonus Plan at Work level 5.  2.    Compensation  2.1   The Employer shall without any admission of liability whatsoever pay to       the Employee the sum of £99,500 (ninety nine  thousand,  five hundred       pounds) in full and final settlement of all claims of the type referred to in       clauses  7  and  8  below ('the Settlement  Payment') within 21 days from       the date  of  this Agreement or the Termination Date whichever is  the                              Page 1 of 10  LON577810193v1
Deandre COOPER v. STATE

CR-15-1323

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 6, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
Bettie S. CALHOUN, Appellant, v. WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB, d/b/a Christiana Trust, Not Individually but as Trustee for Carlsbad Funding Mortgage Trust, Willie C. Calhoun, et al., Appellees.

Case No. 5D17-1144

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 1, 2018

J. Russell Collins, of Rusty Law, LLC, and Vincent L. Sullivan, of Rusty Law, LLC, St. Augustine, for Appellant.

Ira Scot Silverstein, of Ira Scot Silverstein, PLLC, Fort Lauderdale, and Richard S. McIver, of Kass Shuler, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee, Wilmington Savings Fund, Society, FSB, d/b/a Christiana Trust, etc.

No Appearance for other Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

COHEN, C.J., and EVANDER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 27 , 2015.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 15

- 00713

- CV

IN RE J. WOMACK , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

On August 24, 2015, relator J. Womack filed a petition for writ of

m andamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 ( West 2004); see
also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator appears to ask this c ourt to issu e a temporary restraining order against Galveston County and the state of Maryland to prohibit alleged violations of unspecified constitutional rights.

Section 22.221 of the Texas Government Code expressly limits the mandamus jurisdi ction of the court of appeals to: (1) writs against a “judge of a district or county court in the court of appeals district”; and (2) all writs necessary2 to enforce the court of appeals’ jurisdiction. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004)

. Because the petition for writ of mandamus is not directed to a judge of a district or county court in this court of appeals district
, and the issuance of a writ of

mandamus is not necessary to enforce this court’s jurisdic tion, we have no jurisdiction.

Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Justices Boyce, Busby, and Brown.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The followig Financial Data Schedule contains standard data for the three months
ended  April  5,  2000.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<CAPTION>
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JAN-05-2001
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-06-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            APR-05-2000
<CASH>                                          64
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                               201260
<ALLOWANCES>                                  2273
<INVENTORY>                                  27778
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            234016
<PP&E>                                       25742
<DEPRECIATION>                               10681
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              321101
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       153063
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                       121
<OTHER-SE>                                  149447
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                321101
<SALES>                                     211578
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            211578
<CGS>                                       184801
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               184801
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             928
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              10362
<INCOME-TAX>                                  4076
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           6286
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                  6286
<EPS-BASIC>                                  .53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .52


</TABLE>
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 135045 & (12) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 135045 

 COA: 279697 
 Wayne CC: 84-004734

MICHAEL BROWN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 30, 2007 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s 

motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). The motion for 

miscellaneous relief is DENIED. 

d1119 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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 29, 2007 

 Clerk
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benjamin A. GIBBS, a/k/a Hev, a/k/a Bubba, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6135

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: May 26, 2017

Benjamin A. Gibbs, Appellant Pro Se. Emily Evans Limehouse, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Dean Hodge Secor, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before KING,'AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Benjamin A. Gibbs seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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 motion 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 Gibbs 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*
```

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 29 (Friday, February 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8038-8039]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02960]

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

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES

Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules; Meeting of the Judicial 
Conference

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the United States.

ACTION: Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules; notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules will hold a meeting 
on April 28, 2022 in Washington, DC. The meeting is open to the public 
for

[[Page 8039]]

observation but not participation. An agenda and supporting materials 
will be posted at least 7 days in advance of the meeting at: https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/records-rules-committees/agenda-books.

DATES: April 28, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bridget Healy, Esq., Acting Chief 
Counsel, Rules Committee Staff, Administrative Office of the U.S. 
Courts, Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, One Columbus 
Circle NE, Suite 7-300, Washington, DC 20544, Phone (202) 502-1820, 
[email protected].

(Authority: 28 U.S.C. 2073.)

    Dated: February 8, 2022.
Shelly L. Cox,
Management Analyst, Rules Committee Staff.
[FR Doc. 2022-02960 Filed 2-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 2210-55-P
```
Daniel Thomas ARCURI, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2114

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 19, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Commission on Civil Rights

# AGENCY:

United States Commission on Civil Rights.

# ACTION:

Notice of Commission public business meeting.

# DATES:

Friday, February 18, 2022, 12:00 p.m. EST.

# ADDRESSES:

Meeting to take place by telephone and is open to the public by telephone: 888-204-4520, Conference ID #: 1292275.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Angelia Rorison: 202-376-7700;                         *publicaffairs@usccr.gov*.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In accordance with the Government in Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), the Commission on Civil Rights is holding a meeting to discuss the Commission's business for the month of January. This business meeting is open to the public. Computer assisted real-time transcription (CART) will be provided. The web link to access CART (in English) on Friday, February 18, 2022, is                     *https://www.streamtext.net/​player?​event=​USCCR.*                     Please note that CART is text-only translation that occurs in real time during the meeting and is not an exact transcript.                

## Meeting Agenda

I. Approval of Agenda

II. Business Meeting

A. Presentations by State Advisory Committee Chairs on Released Reports and Memorandums

B. Discussion and Vote on Advisory Committee Appointments

C. Discussion and Vote to Appoint Raul (Danny) Vargas as interim Chair of the Virginia Advisory Committee

D. Management and Operations
    - Staff Director's Report

III. Adjourn Meeting

 Dated: February 10, 2022.

Angelia Rorison,

USCCR Media and Communications Director.

[FR Doc. 2022-03198 Filed 2-11-22; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE P
**Exhibit 32**

 

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

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of ZambaCorporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31,2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), Norman D. Smith, President and Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, and Michael H. Carrel, Executive Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1)              TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed thisCertification as of the 14th day of May 2004.

 

 
|   | /s/ Norman D. Smith                                                      |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Norman D. Smith President and Chief Executive  Officer                   |
|   |                                                                     |
|   |                                                                     |
|   | /s/ Michael H. Carrel                                                    |
|   | Michael H. Carrel Executive Vice President and Chief  Financial  Officer |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6169

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

DENNIS TAMAR FREEMAN, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District 

Judge. (2:07-cr-00122-WDK-JEB-1) 

Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 29, 2009 

Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Dennis Tamar Freeman, Appellant Pro Se. D. Monique Broadnax, 

Special Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Dennis Tamar Freeman appeals the district court’s 

order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for 

reduction of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. United States v. Freeman, No. 2:07-cr00122-WDK-JEB-1 (E.D. Va. Jan. 8, 2009). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
Smaranda I. ANGHELACHE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2819

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 19, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

** United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005). United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED July 11, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-41316 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RAUL GONZALEZ-CANTU, Defendant-Appellant.

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

USDC No. 7:05-CR-852

-------------------- Before JOLLY, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Raul GonzalezCantu (Gonzalez) preserves for further review his contention that his sentence is unreasonable because this court’s post-Booker ** rulings have effectively reinstated the mandatory Sentencing Guideline regime condemned in Booker . Gonzalez concedes that his argument is foreclosed by United States v. Mares , 402 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2005), and its progeny, which have outlined this court’s methodology for reviewing sentences for reasonableness.No. 06-41316 -2- In light of Rita v. United States , ___ S. Ct. ___, 2007 WL 1772146 at *6-11 (2007), the issue remains foreclosed. Gonzalez also raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Johnny Daryl MCDANIEL v. STATE

CR-16-0254

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

May 24, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
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 ERHC ENERGY INC. (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the year ending September 30, 2004 (the "Report"), as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I Cosmas Okpala, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge,
that pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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 result of operations of the Company.

By: /s/ Cosmas (Ike) Okpala                      January 30, 2006
----------------------------
         Cosmas (Ike) Okpala
         Chief Financial Officer
         (Principal Accounting Officer)
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

    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 Chronimed Inc (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended March 28, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Henry F. Blissenbach,
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
to the best of my 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.

May 1, 2003

                                         /s/ HENRY F. BLISSENBACH
                                         ----------------------------------
                                         Henry F. Blissenbach
                                         Chief Executive Officer and
                                         Chairman of the Board of Directors

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Chronimed, Inc. and will be retained by Chronimed, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.