alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### William CARAWAN, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HELMS, Correctional Officer, Lanesboro CI; McLendon, Correctional Officer, Lanesboro CI, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-6545

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 19, 2017

Decided: October 23, 2017

William Carawan, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William Carawan, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing 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 the 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 October 25, 2016. The notice of appeal was filed at the earliest, on January 1, 2017. Because Carawan failed to file a timely notice of appeal and because the district court denied his motion for an extension of time, 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*
#### Christopher L. ENGLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 14-35538

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*289Submitted June 8, 2017 * Portland, Oregon

Filed August 21, 2017

Alan Stuart Graf, Alan Stuart Graf, PC, Floyd, VA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Adrian Lee Brown, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, Portland, OR, Nancy Albert Mishalanie, SSA—Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Ap-pellee

Before: TASHIMA, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM**

Christopher England (“England”) initially applied for Social Security Disability benefits in May, 2011. That application was denied, and England did not file an appeal within the allotted time. England claims that he did not appeal because at the time of his denial, he was not represented by counsel and was suffering from lupus fog, which incapacitated him. In February, 2012, England, now represented by counsel, filed a motion to reopen the previous denial, alleging good cause for the late filing. He also filed a second application for benefits. The ALJ denied England’s motion to reopen and denied his second application on *res judicata*grounds. After an unsuccessful appeal to the Appeals Council, England appealed to the district court, which dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

“Where a claimant alleges that a prior determination should be reopened because he suffered from a mental impairment and was not represented by counsel at the time of the denial of benefits, he has asserted a colorable constitutional claim.” *Udd v. Massanari,*245 F.3d 1096, 1099 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing *Evans v. Chater,*110 F.3d 1480, 1483 (9th Cir. 1997)). England made such allegations, and the district court was therefore incorrect in dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Nonetheless, we may affirm for any grounds supported by the record. *Marino v. Vasquez,*812 F.2d 499, 508 (9th Cir. 1987). We conclude that England’s motion to reopen his first application is properly denied on its merits. The record does not support England’s claim that he was suffering lupus fog. England therefore has not shown good cause for reopening his first claim.

England’s second claim for benefits was rightly dismissed as *res judicata.*Both claims presented the same parties, the same facts, and the same issues. *See Lester v. Chater,*81 F.3d 821, 827 (9th Cir. 1995).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Matthew J. KING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James G. COX, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-16725

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed June 2, 2017

Matthew J. King, Pro Se

D. Randall Gilmer, Deputy Attorney General, AGNV-—Office of the Nevada Attorney General (Las Vegas), Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellees .

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Matthew J. King, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Toguchi v. Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants Cox and Byrne because King failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the course of treatment chosen to treat his hepatitis C was “medically unacceptable under the circumstances, and was chosen in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to [King’s] health.” *Id.*at 1058 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (a difference in medical opinion does not rise to the level of deliberate indifference).

King’s appeal of the denial of his motion for preliminary injunction is moot. *See Mt. Graham Red Squirrel v. Madigan,*954 F.2d 1441, 1450 (9th Cir. 1992) (when underlying claims have been decided, the reversal of a denial of preliminary relief would have no practical consequences, and the issue is therefore moot).

*399The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying King’s motions for appointment of a medical expert and an investigator because King failed to show that these appointments were necessary. *See Walker v. Am. Home Shield Long Term Disability Plan,*180 F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir. 1999) (setting forth standard of review).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying King’s motion for appointment of counsel because King did not show exceptional circumstances warranting such an appointment. *See Palmer v. Valdez,*560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of review and explaining the “exceptional circumstances” requirement).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 22, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9445-9446]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03625]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy

32 CFR Part 744

[Docket ID: USN-2020-HQ-0005]
RIN 0703-AB27


Policies and Procedures for the Protection of Proprietary Rights 
in Technical Information Proposed for Release to Foreign Governments

AGENCY:  Department of the Navy, Department of Defense (DoD).

ACTION:  Final rule.

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

SUMMARY:  This final rule removes the Navy regulation on the Policies 
and Procedures for the Protection of Proprietary Rights in Technical 
Information Proposed for Release to

[[Page 9446]]

Foreign Governments because its content is duplicative of a DoD-level 
regulation. The rule is redundant and unnecessary. Therefore, this rule 
can be removed from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

DATES: This rule is effective on February 22, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Captain Bruce Gragert, United States 
Navy, 2000 Navy Pentagon, Room 4B654, Washington, DC 20350-2000, 
telephone: 703-692-5310.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: It has been determined that publication of 
this CFR part removal for public comment is impracticable, unnecessary, 
and contrary to public interest since it is removing a duplicative rule 
memorialized elsewhere in the CFR. The rule provides guidance to 
Department of the Navy entities on the same delegation of authority 
captured in 32 CFR 264.4(d)(3). It does not add or subtract 
requirements beyond those already established.
    This rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866, 
``Regulatory Planning and Review.''

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 744

    Military personnel.

PART 744--[REMOVED]

    Accordingly, by the authority of 5 U.S.C. 301, 32 CFR part 744 is 
removed.

J.M. Pike,
Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register 
Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2022-03625 Filed 2-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
Dismiss and Opinion Filed August 3, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-23-00707-CV

JAMES SMITH, Appellant

V.

DANIEL S. BISHOP AND SUSAN P. BISHOP, Appellees

On Appeal from the 86th Judicial District Court

Kaufman County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 109091-86

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Reichek, and Miskel

Opinion by Justice Reichek

By motion filed July 28, 2023, appellant informs the Court the parties have 

settled their dispute and asks we dismiss the appeal with prejudice. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.1(a)(1). We grant the motion, deny as moot a pending motion to extend time 

to file notice of appeal, and dismiss the appeal with prejudice. See id.

230707f.p05

/Amanda L. Reichek//

AMANDA L. REICHEK

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

JAMES SMITH, Appellant

No. 05-23-00707-CV V.

DANIEL S. BISHOP AND SUSAN 

P. BISHOP, Appellees

On Appeal from the 86th Judicial 

District Court, Kaufman County, 

Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 109091-86.

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Reichek, Justices Partida-Kipness 

and Miskel participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal

with prejudice.

Subject to any agreement among the parties, we ORDER that appellees 

Daniel S. Bishop and Susan P. Bishop recover their costs, if any, of this appeal from 

appellant James Smith.

Judgment entered this 3

rd day of August 2023.
EXHIBIT 99.1


                             CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
                             TO 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 Protide Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
"Registrant") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended May 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 14, 2003, hereof (the Report"), the
undersigned officers 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, and

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

                                           PROTIDE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

Date: July 11, 2003                                 By: /s/ Milo R. Polovina
                                                        --------------------
                                                          Milo R. Polovina
                                                          Chairman of the Board,
                                                          President & CEO




                             CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
                             TO 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 Protide Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
"Registrant") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended May 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 14, 2003, hereof (the Report"), the
undersigned officers 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, and

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

                                           PROTIDE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

Date: July 11, 2003                                 By: /s/ David E. Tess
                                                        -----------------
                                                          David E. Tess
                                                          Vice President Finance
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43756

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

AUSTIN BLAYNEY ,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 671

Filed: September 7, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Elmore County. Hon. Jonathan Medema , District Judge.

Order suspending sentence, affirmed

.
Eric D. Fredericksen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford

, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Austin Blayney pled guilty to an amended charge of rape

. I.C. § 18

- 6101(1) . The district court sentenced Blayney to a unified term of ten years, with a
minimum period of confinement of two years

. The district court retained jurisdiction and sent
Blayney to participate in the rider program. Following successful completion of his rider, the
district court suspended the sentence and placed Blayney on probation. Blayney appeals

. Mindful that Blayney agreed with the State’s recommendation at the time of sentencing
and that he received that sentence, Blayney asserts that his sentence is excessive. The doctrine of
invited error applies to estop a party from asserting an er ror when his or her own conduct induces2

the commission of the error. State v. Atkinson , 124 Idaho 816, 819, 864 P.2d 654, 657 (Ct. App.
1993). One may not complain of errors one has consented to or acquiesced in. State v. Caudill

, 109 Idaho 222, 226, 70 6 P.2d 456, 460 (1985); State v. Lee , 131 Idaho 600, 605, 961 P.2d 1203,
1208 (Ct. App. 1998). In short, invited errors are not reversible. State v. Gittins , 129 Idaho 54,
58, 921 P.2d 754, 758 (Ct. App. 1996). This doctrine applies to sentencing decisi ons as well as
rulings made during trial. State v. Griffith , 110 Idaho 613, 614, 716 P.2d 1385, 1386 (Ct. App.
1986).
Therefore, because Blayney received the sentence he agreed to, he may not complain that

the district court abused its discretion. The refore, the district court’s order suspending Blayney ’s

sentence is affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. section1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Fona, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael Friess,
Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section1350, 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),
as applicable, 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.



BY(Signature)                         /s/ Michael Friess
(Name and Title)                      Michael Friess, Chairman of the Board,
                                      President and Chief Executive Officer

(Date)                                January 4, 2010







                                       15
Gary N. WILLIAMS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3252

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

September 25, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted.
#### Cedric D. JACOBS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-2401

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 26, 2017

Decided: May 9, 2017

*230Cedric D. Jacobs, Appellant Pro Se. Alexandra Garrison Barnett, Glenn G. Patton, ALSTON *&*BIRD, LLP, Atlanta, Georgia; Susan Ballantine Molony, ALSTON & BIRD, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Cedric D. Jacobs appeals the district court’s order granting the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment in his civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Jacobs v. United Parcel Service, Inc.,*No. 3:15-cv-00381-GCM, 2016 WL 8192993 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 5, 2016). We grant Jacobs leave to proceed in forma pauperis on 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.

*AFFIRMED*
Stephen HERBITS, Appellant, v. The CITY OF MIAMI, Appellee.

No. 3D17-389

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed April 4, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
1

The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3678

___________

Sherille Harris, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

United States Postal Service; John E. *

Potter, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: February 7, 2006

Filed: February 13, 2006

___________

Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Sherille Harris, an African-American female, appeals the district court’s1

adverse grant of summary judgment in her employment-discrimination action against

the United States Postal Service brought under Title VII. Having carefully reviewed

the record, see Kincaid v. City of Omaha, 378 F.3d 799, 803-04 (8th Cir. 2004)

(de novo standard of review), we agree with the district court that Harris’s allegations

were either time-barred or meritless, for the reasons explained in the district court’s
-2-

opinion. We also decline to consider Harris’s newly raised allegations on appeal. See

Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th

Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
Exhibit 32.2

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Nexity Financial Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that the Companys annual report on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated September 17, 2007



By:

/s/ John J. MoranJohn J. MoranExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

JOHN H. COHEN, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 206 WAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 28th day of September, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.
Danny J. WILLIAMS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4734

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 23, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

As it appears that the proceedings in the circuit court relative to the petitioner's motion for postconviction relief are progressing, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. Cf. Munn v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 807 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 1st DCA2002). This denial is without prejudice to the petitioner to file a new petition for writ of mandamus if the postconviction court has not entered a final order on the motion within 90 days of the date of this order, provided that the petitioner is unrepresented by counsel in the postconviction proceeding.

SILBERMAN, KELLY, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Curtis J. Parker, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge, Cotelligent, Inc.s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Cotelligent, Inc.



|                         |  |    
|------------------------ |  | ---
|Date:    August 14, 2003 |  | By:
|                         |  |    
|                         |  |
Devin Michael GUILLAUME, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida and Cornita A. Riley, as Chief of Orange County Corrections, Respondents.

Case No. 5D18-1486

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed May 23, 2018

Robert Wesley, Public Defender, and Robert Adams, Assistant Public Defender, Orlando, for Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and L. Charlene Matthews, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Respondents.

PALMER, J.

Devin Guillaume petitions this court for a writ of habeas corpus, seeking either his immediate release or a hearing on his motion to reduce bail. For the reasons set forth in our opinion in *Moore v. State*, No. 5D18-1474,--- So.3d ---- (Fla. 5th DCA May 23, 2018), we grant the petition and direct the trial court to conduct a proper hearing on Guillaume's rule 3.131 motion.1*See* Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.131.

PETITION GRANTED; CAUSE REMANDED.

ORFINGER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

1

The petition for writ of habeas corpus was previously granted by order on May 14, 2018, with an opinion to follow.