alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6475

In Re: CALVIN ROBINSON,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-01-4777)

Submitted: September 11, 2003 Decided: October 10, 2003

Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Calvin Robinson, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Calvin Robinson petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the

district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing the

district court to act. Our review of the docket sheet reveals that

the district court has recently taken substantial action in

Robinson’s case. Accordingly, we deny the mandamus petition as

moot. We grant Robinson’s motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis. 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.

PETITION DENIED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997             JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          27,375                  27,375
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,631                  35,631
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                67,691                  75,687
<PP&E>                                          55,916                  55,916
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,833                   5,833
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 119,624                 119,624
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           50,148                  50,148
<BONDS>                                            304                     304
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        55,339                  55,339
<OTHER-SE>                                        (400)                   (400)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   119,624                 119,624
<SALES>                                         63,186                 114,637
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                63,186                 114,637
<CGS>                                           51,967                  95,108
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   51,967                  95,108
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,618                   9,443
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,267                   2,120
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (527)                 (1,015)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,029                   9,149
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,987                   3,645
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0 
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,042                   5,504
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.16                    0.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.16                    0.28
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          49,981
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           3,042
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 5,191
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    607,441
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         245,927
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           245,324
<LOANS>                                      1,054,854
<ALLOWANCE>                                     10,082
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,084,922
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,481,637
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             36,644
<LONG-TERM>                                    339,201
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       125,190
<OTHER-SE>                                     102,250
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               2,084,922
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 53,903
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                4,752
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                32,078
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                90,733
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              35,264
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              47,414
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           43,319
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      301
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               1,485
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 46,287
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,863
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       7,863
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,128
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .44
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.39
<LOANS-NON>                                      7,030
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 1,511
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 7,777
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      561
<RECOVERIES>                                       120
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               10,270
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            10,270
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
RULE 13a-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
    This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing
of the Registrant under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether
made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q ), irrespective of any general incorporation language
contained in such filing.
 Date: November 9, 2005
    /s/ John L. HigginsJohn L. Higgins
Chief Financial Officer; Executive Vice President,
Finance and Corporate Development
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alexis Geovani AREVALO, also known as Alexis Arevalo, also known as Alexis Giovani Escobar Arevalo, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-20112 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 2, 2017

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

Alexis Geovani Arevalo, Pro Se

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Alexis Geovani Arevalo appeals his 35-month prison sentence for illegally reentering the United States after deportation following a felony conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1). The district court applied a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) (2015) because Arevalo’s prior deportation occurred after a felony conviction for a crime of violence, namely, Texas burglary of a habitation.

Arevalo argues that in light of *Mathis v. United States,*— U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 2243, 195 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016), the Texas burglary statute is not divisible and is overbroad. This argument is foreclosed. *United States v. Uribe,*838 F.3d 667 (5th Cir. 2016), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 1359, 197 L.Ed.2d 542 (2017).

In addition, Arevalo argues for the first time on appeal that the state court record submitted in the district court did not show that he was convicted under the subsection of the Texas burglary statute that supports such an enhancement, Texas Penal Code § 30.02(a)(1). We review this issue for plain error. *See United States v. Herrera-Alvarez,*753 F.3d 132, 135-36 (5th Cir. 2014). The supplemental record shows that there was no error, plain or otherwise. *See United States v. Fernandez-Cusco,*447 F.3d 382, 386-88 (5th Cir. 2006).

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.
Williams, Renee (OST) i>c>dc°ef ^Ol-'OST-lf^'J- l^SH^^ 

From: tracydow@clowelectric.com i^ ' " :',T'r!i 

Sent: Tuesday, August 17,2010 8:07 AM - -• 

To: supervisor@town.massena.ny.us; anicola@twcny.rr.com; EAS (OST) 

Cc: kthomas@flycapeair.com 

Subject: Cape Air 

Mr Gray 

I am writing this email to let your town and village know that this flight(s) from l^assena to 

Albany has been critical service offered that allowed our companies grow (Dow Electric, 

Everything Electric an Alltech Integrations) in the last year. With 85 employees in the 

North Country (NC) many from Massena. 

These flights are regularly used weekly to allow our management to conduct business with our 

clients which are both State Agencies and Federal. The income earned by our employees working 

on Albany projects has supported directly 10 to 15 families a year in Albany alone. This we 

find as beneficial to bring funds to NC versus contractors taking these funds back to Albany. 

I can easily get to Boston from Saranac / Lake Clearj which we have not used. If we W. 

business people can get from Massena to other parts of New York such as Syracuse, Utica, 

Binghamton, Rochester and Buffalo it would only increase NC revenue the world getting smaller 

and we have to stay in the game. In discussion with many passengers I have found these 

flights to be business related more than recreation or vacation. With the flights to Albany, 

the Albany Airport benefits along with there side of off side business such as hotels. 

Well, I'm sure these points have been noted, if you get a true picture of the pro and cons 

then I think that Cape Air brings the best benefit to the North Country. 

If you have any questions feel free to contact me. I'm heading to Albany this am and flying 

back tonight to have diner with my family. After 3 separate client meetings and checking 

progress on 2 projects. "All in a day" 

Thanks for taking the tome to read this. 

Tracy A Dow 

Operations Manager 

(315) 262-5333(c) 

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
#### Arthur J. HERMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. O. E. SATTER, M.D., and Prairie du Chien General Hospital, a corporation, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15640.

United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.

Oct. 14, 1966.

william P. Skemp, Thomas H. Skemp, Quincy H_ Hale> La Crosse, Wis., for appellant.

Richard A. Hollern, D. Y. W. Beck-with, Madison, Wis., for appellees.

Before SCHNACKENBERG, CASTLE and SWYGERT, Circuit Judges.

SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judge.

Arthur J. Herman, plaintiff-appellant, appeals from a judgment of the district court in favor of defendant O. E. Satter, M.D., based on a verdict of a jury.1

Plaintiff sued to recover for injuries alleged to have resulted from defendant’s treatment of a tumor on his arm on March 6, 1961.

The jury specially found that defendant was not negligent with respect to the medical care which he rendered or failed to render plaintiff, which was the basis of the action herein.

According to plaintiff’s version, defendant, a physician, without taking precautions against infection of plaintiff’s arm, injected a hypodermic needle therein and, without proper preparation of his arm, made an incision therein, placed no antiseptic or other medication in the incision, closed it with three stitches and a gauze bandage, and sent him home with instructions to return in five days for removal of the stitches.

On March 9, 1961 plaintiff visited the office of a Dr. Hudek and was advised he had an infectious condition in his arm. Treatment for that condition, including penicillin, was given plaintiff by Dr. Hudek, and, immediately *following*this treatment, plaintiff told that doctor what occurred during the surgery in Dr. Satter’s office on March 6. Dr. Hudek supplied plaintiff with gauze and bandages.

*334The district court ruled that the statement made by plaintiff to Dr. Hudek was hearsay and inadmissible *when offered on behalf of plaintiff.*We hold that the court did not err in so doing. Although plaintiff’s counsel argue that Wisconsin law permits such a recital to be introduced in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule, we find no basis for that contention where, *inter alia,*it affirmatively appeared that plaintiff’s statement now under consideration was made to Dr. Hudek *after*that doctor had completed his treatment of plaintiff’s arm and had instructed him to return to Dr. Satter for any further treatment.

Other contentions advanced by plaintiff are insufficient to justify our reversing the judgment of the district court. That judgment is therefore affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

1

. At the close of plaintiff’s case, the court dismissed the action as to the hospital defendant.
ROBERT ASA GORDON, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. KAREN L. HAAS, Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, Defendant.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Action 11-00003 (RCL)

JUDGMENT For the reasons set forth by the Court in its memorandum filed this same day, it is hereby, ORDERED that defendant’s motion to dismiss [Dkt. # 9] is GRANTED , ORDERED that plaintiffs’ and intervenors’ motions for summary judgement [Dkt. ## 16, 21] are DENIED, and it is further ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction [Dkt. # 3] is DENIED as moot. This case now stands DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE . This is a final appealable order. See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a).
Signed on November 23, 2011 by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth.
#### Arthur H. Stoike, Respondent, *v.*First National Bank of the City of New York, Appellant.

Submitted May 17, 1943;

decided May 27, 1943.

Motion to amend the remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and when returned it will be amended by adding thereto the following: This cause was brought under the provisions of a Federal statute, viz., the Fair Labor Standards Act of June 25, 1938 (52 U. S. Stat. 1060, ch. 676; U. S. Code, tit. 29, § 201 *et seq.),*and an interpretation of that statute was *865necessarily involved in the decision by this court. (See 290 N. Y. 195.)
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6414 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6414

To make Ecuador eligible for designation as a beneficiary country under 
               the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 14, 2023

 Ms. Salazar (for herself, Mr. Espaillat, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Davidson, 
 and Mr. Gallego) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To make Ecuador eligible for designation as a beneficiary country under 
               the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Innovation and Development in 
Ecuador Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY OF ECUADOR FOR DESIGNATION AS A BENEFICIARY COUNTRY 
              UNDER CARIBBEAN BASIN ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT.

    (a) In General.--Section 212(b) of the Caribbean Basin Economic 
Recovery Act (19 U.S.C. 2702(b)) is amended by inserting after 
``Dominica'' the following new item:
    ``Ecuador''.
    (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that the 
President should, not later than 90 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, issue a proclamation designating Ecuador as a 
CBTPA beneficiary country (as such term is defined in section 
213(b)(5)(B) of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (19 U.S.C. 
2703(b)(5)(B)).
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of George M. Northrop, as Executor of Emma C. Sterling, Deceased. Reinhold Anderson et al., Respondents; George M. Northrop, as Executor, et al., Appellants.

Argued April 14, 1943;

decided May 27, 1943.

*822
      *Augustus W. Bennet*for George M. Northrop, as executor, appellant, and in person as Special Guardian for Lois Sterling, appellant.

*Charles I. Sterling*and *Leo E. Falkin*for Edward H. Sterling, Administrator, appellant.

*Charles W. U. Sneed, William J. Lamont*and *Peter H. Harp*for respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs to all parties appearing separately and filing briefs payable out of the estate; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, J J. Taking no part: Lehman, Ch. J., and Finch, J.
Ferlisi BRAY v. Rufus WOOTEN

2015-CT-00645-COA

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: March 28, 2018 Closed: May 31, 2018

Motion Desc: Petition for Writ of Certiorari to Court of Appeals.

Certiorari - Denied.
Kelly A. FLYNN a/k/a Kelly Schutte, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. WACHOVIA MORTGAGE FSB, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2208

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 06, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                     AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                      SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

In connection with the Report of Joystar, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB
for the for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jerry Galant, Chief
Financial 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, 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 result of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Jerry Galant
-------------------------------------
Jerry Galant
Chief Financial Officer
April 17, 2007
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MA TIER OF 

WOOLPERT LLC 

Respondent 

FAA DOCKET NO. 2013EA250068 

(Civil Penalty Proceeding) 

DMSNO. FAAADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

NOT YET ASSIGNED 

Hearing Date: NOT YET ASSIGNED 

Hearing Location: NOT YET ASIGNED 

RECEIVED 

MAR 1 0 2015 

HEARING DOCKET 

REQUEST FOR HEARING PURSUANT TO 14 C.F.R. § 13.16 

COMES NOW, Respondent, Woolpert LLC, by and !hrough undersigned counsel 

pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.16, and hereby requests a hearing concerning the allegations raised in 

the Complainant's Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty dated June 18, 2014, which proposes to 

assess a civil penalty in the amount of $7,000.00. Respondent denies the violations alleged in 

the Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty and prays that it be reversed. 

Respondent requests that a hearing be held in New York, N.Y. A hearing is expected to 

last two (2) full days. 
Dated: March 4, 2015 

2 

GRE9QR TON, ESQ. 

The 'Aviation Law Firm 

.)997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway 

Suite 300 

Annapolis, Maryland 21401 

Tel: (301) 294-8550 

Fax: (866) 568-9886 

Attorney for Respondent 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this date served by regular U.S. mail, postage prepaid, an original 

and one (1) copy of the foregoing Request for Hearing addressed to: 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2014 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

And, further, that I have this date served by regular U.S. mail, postage prepaid, a copy of the 

foregoing Request for Hearing addressed to: 

Dated: 

Dan Kohlmeyer 

Attorney 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Regional Counsel's Office, AEA-7 

1 Aviation Plaza, Room 561 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

Tel: 718 553-3266 

Fax: 718 533-5699 

March 4, 2015 

S. WINTON, ESQ. 

The AVIation Law Firm 

1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway 

Suite 300 

Annapolis, Maryland 21401 

Tel: (301) 294-8550 

Fax: (866) 568-9886 

Attorney for Respondent 

3
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Miguel Alberto MONTERROZA-CALDERON, also known as Miguel Alberto Monterosa, also known as Miguel Alberto Monteroza Calderon, also known as Miguel Monterroza Calderon, Defendant-Appellant

No. 15-20737 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 11/28/2016

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

Miguel Alberto Monterroza-Calderon, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Miguel Alberto Monterroza-Calderon 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 *878Cir. 2011). Monterroza-Calderon has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record referenced therein, as well as Monter-roza-Calderon’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.