alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Julio Guardado FLORES, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 17-1016

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 20, 2017

Decided: August 4, 2017

John T. Riely, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Kohsei Ugumori, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jeffery R. Leist, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before TRAXLER, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Julio Guardado Flores, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his application for adjustment of status. Because the agency denied relief in the exercise of its discretion, we lack jurisdiction over the petition for review pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (2012).* Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review. 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.

*PETITION DISMISSED*

*

 We conclude that Guardado Flores fails to raise a'colorable constitutional claim or question of law that would fall within the exception set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2012).
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF

CRESCENT BANKING COMPANY

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Crescent Banking
Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, J. Donald Boggus, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, based on my knowledge, 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  |  |                                              
| |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------
| |  | 
| |  |  |  | /S/ J. Donald Boggus, Jr.                    
| |  |  |  | J. Donald Boggus, Jr. Chief Executive Officer
| |  |  |  | November 16, 2009                            

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of § 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              FEB-28-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   AUG-31-1998
<CASH>                                            615
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  11,032
<ALLOWANCES>                                      689
<INVENTORY>                                    56,414
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    0
<PP&E>                                         14,415
<DEPRECIATION>                                  6,333
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                119,449
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               0
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                       21,501
<OTHER-SE>                                          0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  119,449
<SALES>                                         8,732
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               72,558
<CGS>                                           5,280
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  65,890
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              2,109
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 4,493
<INCOME-TAX>                                    1,753
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             2,740
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    2,740
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .59
        


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I,Lorna E. Nagler, Chief Executive Officer of Christopher & BanksCorporation (the “Company”) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.  The quarterly report of the Company on Form 10-Qfor the period ended May 29, 2010 as filed with the United StatesSecurities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended;  and

 

2.  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  July 8, 2010 |   |                                                        |
|--------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------|
|                     |   |                                                        |
|                     | By:    | /s/  Lorna E. Nagler                                        |
|                     |   | Lorna  E. Nagler 

*President  and Chief Executive Officer* |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6617

DONALD CORNELIUS JACKSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MS. FARMER, Henrico County Medical

Administrator; MR. DENZLER, Henrico County

Mailroom Officer; MS. JOHNSON, Henrico County

Trusty Officer; MS. BOHANNON, Henrico County

Head Nurse; H. DAILY, Lieutenant, Henrico

County Jail, In charge of Henrico County Jail

Operations; MICHAEL WADE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District

Judge. (CA-00-29-2)

Submitted: September 24, 2002 Decided: October 8, 2002

Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald Cornelius Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Geoffrey Martin Bohn,

CUNNINGHAM & ASSOCIATES, Arlington, Virginia; Richard Samuel Samet,

GOODMAN, ALLEN & FILETTI, Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellees.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Donald Cornelius Jackson appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. See Jackson v. Farmer, No. CA-00-29-2 (E.D. Va.

Mar. 27, 2002). 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
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 6725** 

H. DEWAIN HERRING , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. ROBERT M. STEVENSON, III, Warden Broad River Correctional Institute , Respondent

- Appellee , and
WILLIAM R. B YARS, JR., Director SC Department of Corrections , Respondent
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Rock Hill
. Margaret B. Seymour , Chief District Judge. ( 0:11

- cv - 00160

- MBS )

Submitted : August 16, 2012 Decided: August 21, 2012

Before KING and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
James Mixon Griffin, LEWIS, BABCOCK & GRIFFIN, LLP, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for2 Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: H. Dewain Herring seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealabilit y. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2006) . 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) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner sa tisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 5 29 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Herring 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 legal4 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     5-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                MAY-31-1998
<CASH>                                                0
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      0
<PP&E>                                                0
<DEPRECIATION>                                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 0
<BONDS>                                               0
<COMMON>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<OTHER-SE>                                            0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          0
<SALES>                                          44,017
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 44,017
<CGS>                                            37,369
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    42,104
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  2,037
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                2,256
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (124)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        596
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 472
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                        472
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0
        



</TABLE>
#### Martin RUGAMBA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROCKLEDGE BUS (TOUR), INC.; Rockledge Bus (Tour) Inc. Supervisor; MTA Police Officer 1; MTA Police Officer 2; MTA Bus Driver; MTA Train Operator; Amtrak 3 Unknown Agents; 7-Eleven; 7-Eleven, Inc. 2 Unknown Employees; Does 1-20, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-2391

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2017

Decided: August 3, 2017

*192Martin Rugamba, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

■Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Martin Rugamba appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to reopen his case and file an amended complaint. We dismissed Rugamba’s prior appeal for lack of jurisdiction “[bjecause the deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied by the filing of an *amended,*complaint.” *Rugamba v. Rockledge Bus (Tour), Inc.,*667 Fed.Appx. 61, 61 (4th Cir. 2016) (No. 16-1076) (emphasis added). Because the district court did not permit Rugamba to file an amended complaint, we vacate the district court’s order denying the motion to reopen and remand with instructions to permit Rugamba to do so. 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.

*VACATED AND REMANDED*
STATE of Louisiana v. Alvin DAVIS, Jr.

NO. 2017-K-1440

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 18, 2018

*574Denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Lino HERNANDEZ-BENITEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40206 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 24, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Lino Hernandez-Benitez; Pro Se

Before KING, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Lino Hernandez-Benitez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Hernandez-Benitez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo-lous 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 Cíe. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
Robert O. MOORE v. STATE

CR-16-0126

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 21, 2017 Reh. denied May 12, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
LNB 015-13, LLC, Appellant, v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, etc., Appellee.

No. 3D17-1896

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 16, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 6555

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. LUTHER ALAN WARE , Defendant

- Appellant

.

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

. Catherine C. Eagles , District Judge. ( 1:05

- cr - 00017

- CCE

- 1 )

Submitted : October 14, 2021 Decided: October 18, 2021

Before DIAZ and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Luther Alan Ware, Appellant Pro Se. Julie Carol Niemeier, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Luther Alan Ware appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (i) , as amended b y the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115

- 391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. Having reviewed the record and finding no reversible error, we deny Ware’s motion to appoint counsel and affirm the decision of the district court

. See United States v. Ware , No. 1:05

- cr - 00017

- CCE

- 1 ( M.D.N.C. Mar. 31, 2021 ). 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 Alvin H. DANIELS

CR-16-0691

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 9, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to Calhoun Cir. Ct.
Nebraska Court of Appeals Memorandum Opinions

NOT Selected for Posting to Court Website

(released the week prior to May 15, 2018)

The following memorandum opinions were filed by the Nebraska Court of 

Appeals and can be viewed using SSCALES:

None Available

The above-listed memorandum opinions can be viewed online through the 

appellate court case search available by subscription through Nebraska.gov:

http://www.nebraska.gov/subscriber/.

Current subscribers to Nebraska.gov can search appellate court cases here:

https://www.nebraska.gov/courts/sccales/.
Richard M. CORATELLO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-368

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 24, 2018]

Richard M. Coratello, Lake City, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Gross, Levine and Forst, JJ., concur.
Peter Tory GAYLE, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1384

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

OCTOBER 19, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Dalton Ray STEWART v. DYNAMIC ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, LLC

2017-CT-00467-COA

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: May 21, 2018 Closed: June 21, 2018

Certiorari - Denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Raymond Deshune HANKS, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41303 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 24, 2017

Ernest Gonzalez, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Raymond Deshune Hanks, Pro Se

Before KING, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Raymond Deshune Hanks has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Hanks has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. 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.

*

 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.
# Court of Appeals

**First District of Texas**

BILL OF COSTS

No. 01

- 14

- 00360

- CV

George M. Bishop, et al

v

.

Chappell Hill Service Company, LLC and High Meadows Land & Cattle, LLC

NO. 35476 IN THE 21ST DISTRICT COURT OF WASHINGTON C OUNTY

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID/DUE STATUS PAID BY

MT FEE
SUPP CLK RECORD
CLK RECORD
STATEWIDE EFILING
FILING $10.00 $32.00 $250.00 $20.00 $175.00 08/14/2014
08/04/2014
06/13/2014
05/20/2014
05/20/2014 E

- PAID
UNKNOWN
PAID
PAID
PAID APE
APE
ANT
ANT
ANT 

### The costs incurred on appeal to the First Court of Appeals Houston, Texas are $487.00.

Court costs in this case have been taxed in this Court’s judgment

I, Christopher A. Prine , Clerk o f the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, do hereby certify that this is a true statement of the costs of appeal in this case.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the seal of the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, this October 16, 2015

.
#### A. I. Fitch, Respondent, *v.*John W. Russell, Appellant.

(Argued September 27, 1871;

decided January term, 1872.)

Plaintiff sought to recover a sum alleged to have been expended on joint account of himself and defendant in *a,*partnership transaction. Answer, a denial and counter-claim. The case was tried without objection to the form of action or shape of pleadings. Held, these questions could not be raised upon appeal.

*F. J. Fiihicm,*for the appellant.

*E. P. Glo/rh*for the respondent.

Gray, C., read for affirmance.

All concur, Leonabd, 0., not sitting. Judgment affirmed with costs.
From: <Alicea.Jezebele@epamail.epa.gov>

To: <jschwendeman@firstenergycorp.com>

Date: 7/21/2010 3:33 PM

Subject: Re: Electronic Copy, FE Ext req

Attachments: pic19067.gif; FE ExtReq.pdf

Greetings,

EPA has reviewed your extension request for the steam electric effluent

guidelines questionnaire for the following FirstEnergy Generation Corp

and FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company facilities:

 Ashtabula

 Bay Shore

 Bruce Mansfield

 Davis Besse

 Eastlake

 Lake Shore

 R. E. Burger

 W. H. Sammis

The deadline for your plant to submit Version 1 and Version 2 of the

completed questionnaire is extended to October 15, 2010. Please note

that the deadline for Part G, if applicable, is unchanged and remains

120 days after receipt of the questionnaire. No extensions are granted

for Version 4 of the questionnaire; the deadline for plants receiving

this questionnaire remains 90 days after receipt.

If you need assistance during the completion of the steam electric

questionnaire, please contact the steam electric helpline via e-mail at

steamhelp@erg.com or by phone at 1-877-353-7560.

Sincerely,

(Embedded image moved to file: pic19067.gif)

 

 From: jschwendeman@firstenergycorp.com 

 To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

 Date: 07/07/2010 09:56 AM 

 Subject: Electronic Copy, FE Ext req 

Attached for your electronic files is a pdf copy of the FirstEnergy
Corp.

deadline extension request for the Effluent Guidelines ICR

questionnaire.

A hard copy of this request was submitted last week by courier.

(See attached file: FE ExtReq.pdf)

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

The information contained in this message is intended only for the

personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If

the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an

agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you

are hereby notified that you have received this document in error

and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of

this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this

communication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete

the original message.(See attached file: FE ExtReq.pdf)