alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### WEST VIRGINIA CWP FUND, as carrier FOR C.C. CONLEY & SONS, INC., Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; Doyle G. Bailes, Respondents.

No. 16-1923

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 22, 2017

Decided: June 1, 2017

*111Jeffrey R. Soukup, JACKSON KELLY PLLC, Lexington, Kentucky, for Petitioner. M. Patricia Smith, Solicitor of Labor, Maia S. Fisher, Associate Solicitor, Sean G. Bajkowski, Counsel for Appellate Litigation, Jeffrey S. Goldberg, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C.; Carl Hostler, PRIM LAW FIRM, PLLC, Hurricane, West Virginia, for Respondents.

Before TRAXLER, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

West Virginia CWP Fund seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s award of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-944 (2012). Our review of the record discloses that the Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. W. *Va. CWP Fund v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs,*No. 15-0439-BLA (B.R.B. June 16, 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.

*PETITION DENIED*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 3RD
QUARTER FORM 10-Q FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 4/30/97 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                                           4,995
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  177,735
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,145
<INVENTORY>                                    317,798
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               509,216
<PP&E>                                          92,040
<DEPRECIATION>                                  61,853
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 660,214
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          296,214
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            43
<OTHER-SE>                                     123,833
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   660,214
<SALES>                                      1,391,709
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,630,365
<CGS>                                        1,253,302
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,394,294
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               176,725
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (7,790)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,406
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 48,871
<INCOME-TAX>                                    17,594
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             28,361
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    28,361
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.65
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.65
        

</TABLE>
Christopher GALLANT v. STATE

CR-16-0573

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

May 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

BRANDON MICHAEL WEIDOW,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 298 WAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 8th day of November, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         Independent Auditors' Consent

The Board of Directors
Efficient Networks, Inc.:

     We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements on
Form S-3 (No. 333-41848 and 333-41852) and the registration statements on
Form S-8 (Nos. 333-33036, 333-45454, 333-46128, 333-46130 and 333-46132) of
Efficient Networks, Inc. of our reports dated July 18, 2000, related to the
consolidated balance sheets of Efficient Networks, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
June 30, 2000 and 1999 and the related consolidated statements of operations,
stockholders' equity (deficit) and cash flows and related schedule for each of
the years in the three-year period ended June 30, 2000, which reports appear in
the June 30, 2000 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Efficient Networks, Inc.

                                             KPMG LLP

Dallas, Texas
September 19, 2000
**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002*

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Capital Corp of the West (“theCompany”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed withSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (“the Report”), I, ThomasT. Hawker , President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 

 
| August 12, 2003 |                                                    |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|            |                                                    |
|            | /s/ Thomas T. Hawker                                    |   |
|            | Thomas T. Hawker  President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906, or otherdocument authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signaturethat appears in typed form within the electronic version of this writtenstatement required by Section 906, has been provided to Capital Corp of theWest and will be retained by Capital Corp of the West and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
Exhibit 99.1

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

         In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of AUG CORP. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Laurence S. Isaacson, principal executive officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of 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 fully presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


By:/s/Laurence S. Isaacson
   -----------------------
   Laurence S. Isaacson

December 4, 2002
18400 VON KARMAN AVENUE, SUITE 800 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92612-0514

TELEPHONE (949) 760-1121 / FAX (949) 720-0182

Direct Dial Number: (949) 224-6247

Direct Facsimile Number: (949) 224-6407

E-Mail Address: pfraidenburgh@buchalter.com

Los Angeles • Irvine • San Francisco • Scottsdale

December 18, 2014

VIA E-MAIL (THUY.COOPER@FAA.GOV)

Ms. Thuy H. Cooper

Senior Rulemaking Analyst

Airspace and Airmen Rules Division

Office of Rulemaking

Federal Aviation Administration

Re: Picture Factory, Inc. Petition for Exemption (Docket FAA-2014-0794) - Response 

to Request for Information and Modification to Request for Exemption from Pilot 

Certification Requirement

Dear Ms. Cooper:

Thank you for your correspondence dated December 4, 2014, in which you requested 

additional information regarding the above-referenced petition. I am writing to inform you that 

as of the date of this letter, the information you requested has been submitted as confidential

proprietary information to Mr. Jake Troutman. Please do not hesitate to contact me if any 

additional information is requested in connection with this petition.

I am also writing to formally notify your office that Petitioner wishes to modify its 

petition to reflect the FAA’s recently clarified policy of requiring the Pilot in Command (PIC) to 

hold a private pilot’s certificate. In light of the FAA’s analysis of this issue in its recent grants of 

exemption, Petitioner will no longer seek an exemption to the private pilot’s certification 

requirement. Instead, Petitioner will seek to operate its UAS for commercial purposes using 

PICs holding at least a private pilot’s certificate.

Best regards,

BUCHALTER NEMER

A Professional Corporation

By

Paul J. Fraidenburgh

Counsel for Petitioner
December 18, 2014

Page 2

cc: Rob Pappas

Lakisha Pearson

Jake Troutman

Jillian Nodland
Alfred DENNO, Personal Representative, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. In re: ESTATE OF Lisa J. POULIN, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3752

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 01, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                               5
<MULTIPLIER>                                        1,000
       
<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                             9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                      JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                        SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                                    2,395
<SECURITIES>                                             27,779
<RECEIVABLES>                                            26,700
<ALLOWANCES>                                              1,408
<INVENTORY>                                              20,235
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         79,776
<PP&E>                                                  170,083
<DEPRECIATION>                                           72,279
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                          215,407
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    46,664
<BONDS>                                                 128,383
<COMMON>                                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                                               18,782
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                            215,406
<SALES>                                                 210,941
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        210,941
<CGS>                                                   177,016
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           197,178
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          9,162
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       10,116
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                           4,601
<INCOME-TAX>                                                 33
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                       4,568
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                              4,568
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                 0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 0
        



</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Tito OLVERA-CASTRO, Defendant-Appellant

No. 14-41222 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 12/20/2016

Lauretta Drake Bahry, Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Michael Lance Herman, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Scott Andrew Martin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Tito Olvera-Castro raises an argument that is foreclosed by *United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria,*831 F.3d 670 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc), *petition for cert. filed*(Sept. 29, 2016) (No. 16-6259). In *Gonzalez-Longoria,*we held that 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), which defines a crime of violence when incorporated by reference into U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C), is not unconstitutionally vague on its face in light of *Johnson v. United States,*— U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). *Id.*at 672. Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is 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.
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT - 32.1

                                  MOSSIMO, INC.

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Mossimo, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mossimo Giannulli,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify in accordance with
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

              (1)  The Report to which this certification is attached as Exhibit
                   - 32.1 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, results of
                   operations, and cash flows of the Company.


/s/ Mossimo Giannulli
------------------------------------
Mossimo Giannulli
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
May 14, 2004
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6898

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LORENZO RANTELLE NICHOLSON, a/k/a Zo,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (6:08-cr-00117-HMH-4; 6:11-cv-70089-HMH)

Submitted: December 20, 2011 Decided: December 22, 2011

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lorenzo Rantelle Nicholson, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean 

Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Lorenzo Rantelle Nicholson seeks to appeal the 

district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 

(West Supp. 2011) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 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 (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 motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Nicholson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from SEC
     Form 10-Q and is qualified  in its entirety by reference to such  financial
     statements as of and for the year ended March 31, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000883946
<NAME>                        NETWORK IMAGING CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                               4,811
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        8,443
<ALLOWANCES>                                        (2,011)
<INVENTORY>                                            796
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    12,742
<PP&E>                                               7,162
<DEPRECIATION>                                      (5,123)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      18,276
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               10,919
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 3
<OTHER-SE>                                           6,249
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        18,276
<SALES>                                              6,200
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     6,200
<CGS>                                                3,660
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        3,660
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     4,906
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      68
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (2,434)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (2,434)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (2,771)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.10)
        


</TABLE>
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 19-14553

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:18-cr-00088-KD-N-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BETTYE CLEMENT HAYS,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Alabama

________________________

(October 23, 2020)

Before JILL PRYOR, LUCK and HULL Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The Government’s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to the appeal waiver 

in Appellant’s plea agreement is GRANTED. See United States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d 

USCA11 Case: 19-14553 Date Filed: 10/23/2020 Page: 1 of 2
2

1343, 1350-51 (11th Cir. 1993) (sentence appeal waiver will be enforced if it was 

made knowingly and voluntarily); United States v. Bascomb, 451 F.3d 1292, 1297

(11th Cir. 2006) (appeal waiver “cannot be vitiated or altered by comments the court 

makes during sentencing”); United States v. Grinard-Henry, 399 F.3d 1294, 1296 

(11th Cir. 2005) (waiver of the right to appeal includes waiver of the right to appeal 

difficult or debatable legal issues or even blatant error). Moreover, the 

Government’s motion to dismiss this appeal as untimely is GRANTED. See United 

States v. Lopez, 562 F.3d 1309, 1314 (11th Cir. 2009) (holding that if a criminal 

defendant’s notice of appeal is filed more than 30 days after the expiration of the 

initial 14-day appeal period, then the defendant is not eligible for relief under Fed. 

R. App. P. 4(b)(4)). 

USCA11 Case: 19-14553 Date Filed: 10/23/2020 Page: 2 of 2