alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, the undersigned, Jay C. Peterson, Chief Financial Officer of ForgentNetworks, Inc. (the “Company”), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       The quarterlyreport on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended October 31,2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended, and

 

2.                                       The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/ JAY C. PETERSON     |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Jay C. Peterson         |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |
|   | December 15, 2008  |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to ForgentNetworks, Inc. and will be retained by Forgent Networks, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.  The foregoing certification isbeing furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not beingfiled as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

 

----
**FTIR Analysis of PMN Substance**
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 17, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70259-70260]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28728]

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

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES

Notice of Open Special Meeting of the Sub-Saharan Africa Advisory 
Committee (SAAC) of the Export-Import Bank of the United States 
(Export-Import Bank).

SUMMARY: The Sub-Saharan Africa Advisory Committee was established by 
Public Law 105-121, November 26, 1997, to advise the Board of Directors 
on the development and implementation of policies and programs designed 
to support the expansion of the Bank's

[[Page 70260]]

financial commitments in Sub-Saharan Africa under the loan, guarantee, 
and insurance programs of the Bank. Further, the committee shall make 
recommendations on how the Bank can facilitate greater support by U.S. 
commercial banks for trade with Sub-Saharan Africa.
    Time and Place: December 2, 2010, at 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. The 
meeting will be held at the Export-Import Bank in Room 1143, 811 
Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571.
    Agenda: Presentation on recent developments in Sub-Saharan Africa 
markets by Export Import Bank staff; an update on the Bank's on-going 
business development initiatives in the region; and Committee 
discussion of current challenges and opportunities for U.S. exporters.
    Public Participation: The meeting will be open to public 
participation, and the last 10 minutes will be set aside for oral 
questions or comments. Members of the public may also file written 
statement(s) before or after the meeting. If any person wishes 
auxiliary aids (such as a sign language interpreter) or other special 
accommodations, please contact, prior to December 2, 2010, Richard 
Thelen, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571, Voice: (202) 
565-3515 or TDD (202) 565-3377.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, contact 
Richard Thelen, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571, (202) 
565-3515.

Jonathon Cordone,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2010-28728 Filed 11-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-M
```
454 A.2d 153

#### Commonwealth v. Hodge, Appellant.

Submitted March 16, 1982.

John P. Liekar, for appellant; Grayce R. Kovacs, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before SPAETH, JOHNSON and HOFFMAN, JJ.

The order of the court is affirmed.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1518 

To improve the national instant criminal background check system in order 

to search the National Data Exchange database when conducting criminal background checks. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 2, 2021 

Mr. RICE of South Carolina (for himself, Ms. MACE, Mr. VICENTE GONZALEZ

of Texas, and Mr. KIND) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To improve the national instant criminal background check 

system in order to search the National Data Exchange 

database when conducting criminal background checks. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘21st Century NICS 

5 Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1518 IH

1 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT THAT THE NICS SYSTEM SEARCH 

2 THE NATIONAL DATA EXCHANGE DATABASE 

3 IN CONDUCTING BACKGROUND CHECKS. 

4 Section 103(e)(1) of the Brady Handgun Violence 

5 Prevention Act (34 U.S.C. 40901(e)(1)) is amended by 

6 adding at the end the following: 

7 ‘‘(L) SEARCH OF NATIONAL DATA EX8 CHANGE DATABASE.—The system established 

9 under this section may search the database of 

10 the National Data Exchange in conducting a 

11 background check under this section.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
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 June 30, 2006, 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, 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.President and Chief Executive OfficerAugust 11, 2006 |  |
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 14

- 00038

- CR

Allan Latoi Story v. The State of Texas

On a ppeal from the 19th District Court of McLennan County , Texas Trial Cause No. 2011

- 2499

- C1

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this c ause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. November 19, 2015.
STATE of Louisiana v. Elijah MEALANCON

NO. 2017-KK-0933

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 25, 2018

Denied. Moot.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-22-00144-CV

City of Valley Mills, Texas

v.

William Chrisman and Darrin Troxell

On Appeal from the

220th District Court of Bosque County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CV18005

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and rendered. The 

Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED and RENDERS judgment in 

accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellees.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

November 16, 2023
STATE of Louisiana v. Joe Litton BAILEY

NO. 2017-KO-1734

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 18, 2018

Denied.

JOHNSON, C.J., would grant.

GENOVESE, J., would grant.
Alfred P. MONTGOMERY v. ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

CR-16-0076

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 21, 2017 Reh. denied May 5, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2011

- 0255 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2010

-NM

- 253

-AD If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into a nd then out of the changed cell

. **Estimated Costs:**  Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- h ours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

c ost ( @ $8 5 /h our) Part s Cost Total Costs ( labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U

. S

. Fleet



### 16.0 $1,360.0

0 

### $1,340 $2,700.00 

### 185 $499,500.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 .00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $499,500 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $
**O n**  **- Condition Costs:**  Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- h ours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

( @ $8 5 /hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.0 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES * NO

* Explanation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES * NO

* Explanation: **Regulat ory Flexibility Act:**  Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for either a Yes or No answer. YES NO Explanation: **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES * NO


### * Explanation 

### :
MKL 03.31.2012 EX 10.2






Exhibit 10.2




SCHEDULE OF BASE ANNUAL SALARIES FOR EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
(effective March 1, 2012)




	
				
	Name
	Base Salary

	Alan I. Kirshner
	$
	650,000
	


	Steven A. Markel
	600,000
	


	Anthony F. Markel
	150,000
	


	F. Michael Crowley
	550,000
	


	Thomas S. Gayner
	550,000
	


	Richard R. Whitt, III
	550,000
	


	Gerard Albanese, Jr.
	450,000
	


	Britton L. Glisson
	380,000
	


	Anne G. Waleski
	360,000
R.R., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-2739

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 16, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
21ST CENTURY ONCOLOGY SERVICES, LLC, and 21st Century Oncology, Inc., Petitioners, v. Laura A. HUDSON, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Todd Michael Hudson, deceased, Respondent.

Case No. 2D17-1701

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 18, 2018.

Thomas A. Valdez of Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., Tampa; and Jesse Gubernat of Banker Lopez Gassler P.A., Fort Myers, for Petitioners.

Alexander Brockmeyer of Boyle & Leonard, P.A., Fort Myers, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Denied.

CASANUEVA, SALARIO, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
Anthony G. TOLBERT, Appellant, v. Loray Antoinette Blair BRITT, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2436

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

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 unpublished 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 by 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
James PRITCHARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1816

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 10, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Okang Kareen ROCHELLE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-7766

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 20, 2017

Decided: April 25, 2017

Okang Kareen Rochelle, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Anand P. Ra-maswamy, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Okang Kareen Rochelle appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion for a sentence reduction, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012), and denying his motion to alter or amend' the judgment. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not err in denying Rochelle’s § 3582(c)(2) motion. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of § 3582(c)(2) relief for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Rochelle,*No. 1:05-cr-00112-WO-1 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 27, 2016). Because the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Rochelle’s motion to alter or amend the judgment, we affirm the denial of that order. *See United States v. Goodwyn,*596 F.3d 233, 234 (4th Cir. 2010) (holding that district court lacks authority to grant motion to reconsider ruling on § 3582(c)(2) motion). 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*
07/08/201 0 17;1 4 FAX 202493514 2 FA A + DM S glOOI/00 1

< 

# comlu x

TH E AVIATIO N CROU P •^ 1 ' I I "/^=*fc,j^ . Comlu xAviatio n Service s li^/ 3 264 0 S Carg o Driv e ^ ^ Indianapolis , I N 4624 1 ^' ~ ~ D A'; J 317.472.737 0 

# •*^£4B;NQ.D0CKer Jun . 28 , 201 0 Attention : Hon . Isaa cD . Benkin , Administrativ e La wJudg e Offic e o fHearings , M2 0 U-S . Departmen t o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne wJerse yAve. , S-E . Washington , D.C . 2059 0 Dea rJudg e Benkin , Subject : Reques t fo rExtensio n o f Hearin g - DM S No . FAA-2010'031 7 I hav e contacte d Attorne yZuraie s regardin g thi s case an d expresse d m ydesir e fo ra n extensio n o fth e Jul y22" " 201 0 Hearin g dat e t o allo wfo rSettlemen t discussion s t o conclude . Mr . Zurale s indicate d ther e wer e n o objection s o n hi s par t fo rth e requeste d extension , an d I propos e tha t a n extensio n o f6 0 day s o rmor e wil l b e sufficient . Than k yo u fo ryou rattentio n i n thi s matte ran d pleas e fee l fre e t o contac t m e a t you rconvenienc e i fI mayprovid e an yadditiona l information . Sincerely , Mar k A . Nelso n Vic e Presiden t Comlu xAviatio n Service s Mark.nel5on(S>comluxaviaticn.u s Cc : Chri s Zurales , Complainant' s Counse l Hearin g Docke t Cler k

TH E COMPLET E LUXUR YAVIATIO N SERVIC E
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Michael J. Lyftogt, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer of Christopher & Banks Corporation (the “Company”) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.  The quarterly report of the Company on Form 10-Q****for the period ended May 28, 2011 as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;  and

 

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

 

 
| Date:   July 7, 2011 |     |
|---------------------------|----------|
|                      |     |
|                      | By:      | /s/   Michael J. Lyftogt |
|                      | * * | Michael   J. Lyftogt 

*Senior   Vice President,*

*Chief   Financial Officer* |

 

----
#### Ayodele AKINOLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David SEVERNS, Defendant-Appellee,

No. 14-15302

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 15, 2017

Ayodele Akinola, Pro Se

David Robert Keene, II, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney, AGNV—Office of the Nevada Attorney General (Las Vegas), Las Vegas, NV, Dominika J. Batten, Deputy Attorney General, AGNV—Office of the Nevada Attorney General (Reno), Reno, NV, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Ayodele Akinola appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing certain claims in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging race discrimination in his employment with the State of Nevada’s Department of Transportation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.1 We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). *Lacey v. Maricopa County,*693 F.3d 896, 911 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Akinola’s Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim based on a hostile work environment theory because Akinola failed to allege facts sufficient to show conduct severe or pervasive enough to alter the terms or conditions of his employment. *See Manatt v. Bank of Am., NA,*339 F.3d 792, 798-99 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth elements of a hostile work environment claim).

After considering Akinola’s response to the Order to Show Cause Re: Case Dismissal (Docket Entry No. 41), we decline to consider Akinola’s First Amendment retaliation claim because this court already considered this claim in Case No. 15-16066. *Akinola v. Severns,*684 Fed.Appx. 665 (9th Cir. 2017).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Akinola’s motion for leave to file a late letter brief (Docket Entry No. 38) is granted. The Clerk shall file the letter brief *285submitted by AMnola on March 1, 2017 (Docket Entry No. 36).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. After considering the parties' responses to the Order to Show Cause Re; Jurisdiction (Docket Entry No. 30), we are satisfied that we have jurisdiction.
#### Anthony Lamar WRIGHT, a/k/a Anthony L. Wright, formerly #250258, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. DARBY, in his individual capacity; Dr. Randolph, in her individual capacity; Dr. Grant, in his individual capacity; Sheriff Strickland, in his individual capacity; Sheriff Koon, in his individual capacity; Sheriff Leon Lott, in his individual capacity; Correct Care Solutions; Southern Health Partners; Sergeant Holley; Dr. Chaves, in his individual capacity; Charleston County Detention Center; Sheriff Al Cannon; Nurse Herndon, in her individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-6764

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: September 14, 2017

Decided: September 21, 2017

Anthony Lamar Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Victor Gende, John Earle Tyler, SWEENY, WINGATE *&*BARROW, PA, Columbia, South Carolina; Otto Edworth Liipfert, III, GRIFFITH, FREEMAN & LIIPFERT, LLC, Beaufort, South Carolina; Michael Stephen Pauley, PAULEY LAW FIRM, LLC, Lexington, South Carolina; Andrew Lindemann, DAVIDSON *&*LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina; James Grant Long, III, NEXSEN PRUET, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina; Charles Albert Kinney, Jr., Daniel Roy Settana, Jr., MCKAY LAW FIRM, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Lamar Wright seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s reports and recommendations and dismissing Wright’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) civil rights action as against all Defendants. 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 *231or 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 January 20, 2017. The notice of appeal was filed on June 14,2017. Because Wright failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We deny Wright’s motions for appointment of counsel and for summary judgment against Defendant Dr. Grant. 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*