alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-10783

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DAVID VALDEZ, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:17-CR-463-1

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent David Valdez, Jr.,

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Valdez has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently 

developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Valdez’s claims of ineffective 

assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without 

 

* 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

November 13, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-10783 Document: 00515198135 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/13/2019
No. 18-10783

2

prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 

(5th Cir. 2014). 

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein, as well as Valdez’s response. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is 

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 18-10783 Document: 00515198135 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/13/2019
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH v. A.G.

2160307

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 30, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned, Leonard F. Ferro, Chief Accounting Officer of Galey & Lord, Inc. (the Company), hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending December 27, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                         
|-----------------------------------------
|                                         
|/s/ Leonard F. Ferro                     
|                                         
|Leonard F. Ferro Chief Accounting
Officer
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 8, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 7230]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02533]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration #17332 and #17333; Virginia Disaster Number VA-
00096]


Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the Commonwealth of 
Virginia

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a 
disaster for the Commonwealth of Virginia dated 02/02/2022.
    Incident: Severe Storms and Flooding.
    Incident Period: 08/30/2021 through 08/31/2021.

DATES: Issued on 02/02/2022.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 04/04/2022.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 11/02/2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster 
loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally 
announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties: Buchanan
Contiguous Counties:
    Virginia: Dickenson, Russell, Tazewell
    West Virginia: McDowell, Mingo
    Kentucky: Pike

    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Physical Damage:
  Homeowners with Credit Available Elsewhere.................      3.125
  Homeowners without Credit Available Elsewhere..............      1.563
  Businesses with Credit Available Elsewhere.................      5.710
  Businesses without Credit Available Elsewhere..............      2.855
  Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere...      2.000
  Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere      2.000
For Economic Injury:
  Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives without Credit      2.855
   Available Elsewhere.......................................
  Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere      2.000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 17332 6 
and for economic injury is 17333 0.
    The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Kentucky, 
Virginia, West Virginia.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

Isabella Guzman,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-02533 Filed 2-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8026-03-P
#### David R. CORBIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Judge Talmadge BAGGETT; Billy West, District Attorney; The Williford Law Firm; Ellen Hancock, Trial Administrator of the Court; Christa Baker, Trial Administrator of the Court, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1665

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: September 26, 2017

Decided: September 28, 2017

David R. Corbin, Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

David R. Corbin seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends *259the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” *Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on April 21, 2017. The notice of appeal was filed on May 24, 2017. Because Corbin failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 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*
Akeem William David JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3144

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 17, 2018

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Glenna Joyce Reeves, Assistant Public Defender, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Daniel Krumbholz, Assistant Attorney General, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

Appellant was convicted of two counts of resisting an officer without violence after he ran from officers, fell to the ground almost immediately, and continued to resist while on the ground until he was restrained and loaded into a patrol car. The entire encounter took twenty to thirty seconds. Because this incident amounts to one criminal episode and one criminal act, the dual convictions for resisting an officer without violence are a double jeopardy violation. *See* *R.J.R. v. State* , 88 So.3d 264, 267 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) ("Florida courts have consistently held that a continuous resistance to an ongoing attempt to effectuate a person's arrest or detainment constitutes only one single instance of resisting an officer."); *Williams v. State* , 959 So.2d 790, 793 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) ("When considering the issue of what constitutes a criminal episode in the context of resisting charges, courts have held that a defendant's continuous resistance to a single ongoing attempt to effectuate his arrest constitutes a single episode of resisting."). The remedy is to "reverse and remand for the trial court to vacate one of the convictions for resisting arrest without violence." *See* *Fogle v. State* , 754 So.2d 878, 879 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).

REVERSED and REMANDED .

Rowe, Ray, and Makar, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of 3CI Complete ComplianceCorporation (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”),I, Otley L.Smith III, thePresident and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

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

 
| Date:  May 13, 2004 | /s/  Otley L. Smith III               |   |
|--------------------------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                     | Otley L. Smith III                    |
|                     | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
#### In the Matter of Tobie Saren, Appellant, v Vincent Palma, Jr, Respondent.

[770 NYS2d 652]

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Spinner, J.), entered March 10, 2003, which denied her objections to so much of an order of the same court *(Buse, H.E.)*entered August 22, 2002, as, after a hearing, denied her petition to direct the father to pay a pro rata share of child care expenses and the cost of medical insurance provided by her, and instead directed the father to pay child support in the sum of only $111 per week and to provide medical insurance for their child.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the mother’s contention, the Hearing Examiner properly denied her application to direct the father pay a pro rata share of child care expenses, as she failed to prove that she incurred such expenses *(see*Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [c] [4]). The Hearing Examiner also properly declined to impute additional income to the father. The findings regarding the father’s income were based on credibility determinations and are supported by the record. Therefore, they should not be disturbed *(see Matter of Coniglio v Coniglio,*295 AD2d 509 [2002]; *Matter of Jackson v Shuler,*292 AD2d 529, 530 [2002]).

The mother’s remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Altman, J.P., Krausman, Adams and Townes, JJ., concur.
Kareem HANSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3947

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 15, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-41210

Summary Calendar

 

ROBERT DAVIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WILBUR DIXON, Coffield Unit; KEVIN MOORE,

Warden, Coffield Unit; C. CHOATE, Mailroom,

Coffield Unit,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:97-CV-409

- - - - - - - - - -

March 31, 1998

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert Davis, a Texas prisoner (# 584003), appeals from the

dismissal of his in forma pauperis complaint as frivolous,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), following an

evidentiary hearing before a magistrate judge pursuant to Spears

v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985). Davis contends that

the magistrate judge erred in rejecting his claims that a prison

doctor had been deliberately indifferent to his medical needs by
2

failing to prescribe arch supports for his shoes and that the

warden and mailroom supervisor had violated his Eighth Amendment

rights by failing to forward to him shoes that he mail-ordered

from an outside vendor. Davis had also vaguely alleged that

failure to provide him with sufficient hygiene items in the

“Level III” unit where he is confined constitutes cruel and

unusual punishment. We have reviewed the record and Davis’ brief

and AFFIRM essentially for the reasons set forth by the

magistrate judge in her memorandum opinion. Davis v. Dixon, No.

6:97-CV-409 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 16, 1997); see Denton v. Hernandez,

504 U.S. 25, 33-34 (1992) (construing former 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(d)). Davis has raised other claims for the first time on

appeal--regarding “paper gowns,” “paper masks,” and food loaf--

but he had not demonstrated plain error as to these new

allegations. See Robertson v. Plano City of Tex., 70 F.3d 21, 23

(5th Cir. 1995).

AFFIRMED.
Thomas J. HOOGHE v. STATE of Mississippi

2016-CT-01039-COA

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: March 2, 2018 Closed: May 10, 2018

Motion Desc: Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

Certiorari - Denied.
Sonja Renee BAGGETT v. James Darrell BAGGETT

2016-CT-00537-COA

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: March 27, 2018 Closed: June 28, 2018

Certiorari - Denied.
EX PARTE Joel CALDWELL

CR-16-0664

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 13, 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of PAREXEL International Corporation (the Company) for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Josef H. von Rickenbach, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 27, 2010



/s/ Josef H. von RickenbachJosef H. von RickenbachChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to PAREXEL International Corporation and will
be retained by PAREXEL International Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### In the Matter of Fatima G., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Althia M., Appellant.

[769 NYS2d 758]

In a proceeding pursuant *496to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Knipps, J.), dated August 3, 2001, as, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated June 27, 2001, determined that she had neglected the subject child. The appeal from the order of disposition brings up for review the fact-finding order dated June 27, 2001.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Although the order of disposition has expired, the adjudication of neglect constitutes a permanent and significant stigma, and therefore the appeal is not academic *(see Matter of Kevin D.,*300 AD2d 304 [2002]; *Matter of Sidney S.,*292 AD2d 534 [2002]).

The evidence presented at the fact-finding hearing established by a preponderance of the evidence that the mother, Althia M., neglected her daughter, Fatima G. *(see*Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i]; § 1046 [b] [i]; *Matter of Irene O.,*38 NY2d 776 [1975]; *Matter of Tammie Z.,*66 NY2d 1 [1985]).

The remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Adams and Cozier, JJ., concur.
#### Michael Ray JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eric D. WILSON, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-6240

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 28, 2017

Decided: July 19, 2017

Michael Ray Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly G. Ang, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Ray Johnson, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pau-peris, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Johnson v. Wilson,*No. 1:15-cv-01273-LMB-IDD, 2016 WL 521512 (E.D, Va. Feb. 5, 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*
Gary L. WOODROFFE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Lizabeth Lynn LOTSEY, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0215

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 01, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted.
EXHIBIT 32

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO

18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection withthe Annual Report of GREM USA (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the periodended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ed Miers, the sole officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

-  The Report	fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the	Securities Exchange Act of 1934; andThe	information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material	respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 

/s/ Edward Miers                              

Ed Miers

Chief Executive Officer and PrincipalAccounting Officer

April 22, 2005
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23.2

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Forms S-8 (File No. 333-89331, effective October 20, 1999 and File No.
333-65430, effective July 19, 2001) pertaining to the 1998 Stock Plan and the
1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of rStar Corporation (formerly known as ZapMe!
Corporation) of our report dated January 31, 2002, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of rStar Corporation included in this annual
report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002.



                                                    Yours Truly,

San Francisco, California                        Grant Thornton LLP
April 14, 2003
#### Ray W. BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Earl BARKSDALE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6226

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 25, 2017

Decided: May 31, 2017

*85Ray W. Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ray W. Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as successive and unauthorized. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate 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. § 2258(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 Brown 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*
Arlene CAROTHERS v. CITY OF WATER VALLEY, Mississippi

2015-CT-01808-COA

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: February 27, 2018 Closed: May 10, 2018

Motion Desc: Arlene Carothers Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

Certiorari - Denied.