alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Montavius Antoine JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David MITCHELL, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-7216

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 11, 2017

Decided: April 13, 2017

Montavius Antoine Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Montavius Antoine Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as untimely. Although “[t]he parties ... have not questioned our jurisdiction ..., we have an independent obligation to verify the existence of appellate jurisdiction” and may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. *Porter v. Zook,*803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted); *see*28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). “Ordinarily, a district court order is not final until it has resolved *all*claims as to all parties.” *Porter,*803 F.3d at 696 (internal quotation marks omitted). “Regardless of the label given a district court decision, if it appears from the record that the district court has not adjudicated all of the issues in a case, then there is no final order.” *Id.*

In this case, the district court failed to consider Johnson’s claims that his petition was timely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(C), (D) (2012). Because the district court did not rule on those claims, it “never issued a final decision” in this matter. *Id.*at 699. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand to the district court for consideration of Johnson’s remaining claims. We express no opinion on the ultimate disposition of those claims, and we deny Johnson’s motions to expand the record, to appoint counsel, for discovery, for harmless error review, to amend his brief and motions, and to stay his appeal. We dispense with *215oral 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 AND REMANDED*
**Exhibit 21.1**

**SUBSIDIARIES**

Beauty.com, Inc., a Delaware corporation 

Custom Nutrition Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation 

DS Pharmacy, Inc., a Delaware corporation 

DS Fulfillment, Inc., a Delaware corporation 

DS Distribution, Inc., a Delaware corporation

DS Non-Pharmaceutical Sales, Inc., a Delaware corporation 

International Vision Direct Corp., a Delaware corporation 

International Vision Direct, Inc., a Washington corporation 

International Vision Direct, Ltd., a British Columbia, Canada company 

Vision Direct, Inc., a Texas corporation
<PAGE>
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
 
                         PACIFIC GATEWAY EXCHANGE,INC.
         EXHIBIT 11 - STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                  (in thousands, except net income per share)
 
                                                                       Three months
                                                                      Ended March 31,
                                                                   -----------------------
                                                                     1997            1996
                                                                   -------          ------              
 COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON
    AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE
 <S>                                                              <C>              <C>
    Average shares outstanding                                     18,938           14,100

    Add:
     Common stock equivalent of stock
          options and warrants                                        599              200
                                                                   ------           ------                    
                                                                   19,537           14,300
                                                                   ======           ======   
     Net income                                                     2,462              366
                                                                   ======           ======   
     Primary net income per share                                    0.13             0.03
                                                                   ======           ======  
COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON
    AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE
    ASSUMING FULL DILUTION:
    Average shares outstanding                                     18,938           14,100
  
    Add:
      Common stock equivalent of stock
           options and warrants                                                                             
                                                                      540              200
                                                                   ------           ------                    
                                                                   19,478           14,300
                                                                   ======           ======

      Net income                                                    2,462              366
                                                                   ======           ======

      Fully diluted net income per share                             0.13             0.03
                                                                   ======           ======
 
</TABLE>
**GreenChill Partner Roundtable:**

**EPA Actions under the President’s Climate Action Plan and Opportunities for GreenChill** Tuesday , February

25, 2014 2:00 PM to 3:00 PM (Eastern)
**Attendees: Company/Agency**  **Attendee s**  Arkema Patti Conlan Dow Ke vin Connor DuPont Joyce Wallace, Tim Snyder Food Lion Nick Cordasci Giant Eagle Jim Galehan Hannaford Harrison Horning Hillphoenix Jeff Newel Hussmann Ron Shebik ICOR International Dave Callendar Meijer George Ronn, Ryan Ritsema, Dave Shafer Mexichem Fluor Sean Cunningham, Scott Koerper National Refrigerants Maureen Beatty Price Chopper Benny Smith Stater Bros. Lance Durr Stratospheric Protection Division, U.S. EPA Drusilla Hufford, Cindy Newberg, Tom Land, Bella Maranion Stratus Consulting (EPA Contractor) Joe Donahue, Alexis St. Juliana Target Erich Schwab, Kathie Engelke, Samantha Schwartz Weis Markets Gary Rodgers, Paul Burd Whole Foods Kathy Loftus, Mike Ellinger
**Roundtable Summary** The purpose of this roundtable was for EPA staff to provide GreenChill partners with an overview of the agency ’s actions under the President’s Climate Action Plan, with a particular focus on actions pertinent to commercial refrigeration . The roundtable also provided the partners with an opportunity

to ask questions about EPA’s actions

. The presentation was led by Drusilla Hufford, Director of EPA's Stratospheric Protection Division . The presentation was the same as the one given at a February 4, 2014 meeting with EPA’s Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Pro gram stakeholders (the presentation is in the docket)

. EPA staff invited an open dialogue following the presentation. Cindy Newberg, Chief of the Alternatives and Emissions Reduction Branch within EPA’s Stratospheric Protection Division, and Tom Land, EP A’s GreenChill Program Manager, responded to partner questions. There werequestions about the expected timing of the SNAP rules, whether the status change for high

- GWP

substances would appl y t o installed equipment that use those substances, and the timing for and availability

of lower

- GWP alternatives and equipment using those alternative substances.
**Exhibit 21.1**

**SUBSIDIARIES**

Beauty.com, Inc., a Delaware corporation 

Custom Nutrition Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation 

DS Pharmacy, Inc., a Delaware corporation 

DS Fulfillment, Inc., a Delaware corporation 

DS Distribution, Inc., aDelaware corporation 

DS Non-Pharmaceutical Sales, Inc., a Delaware corporation 

De~luxe Distributors, Inc., a Delaware corporation 

International Vision Direct, Ltd., a British Columbia, Canada company

Michigan Online Sales, Inc., a Delaware corporation 

RADOnline Sales, Inc., a Delaware corporation 

Vision Direct, Inc., a Texas corporation
NO. 07-10-0158-CR 

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

 AT AMARILLO 

 PANEL D 

SEPTEMBER 2, 2010 

 ______________________________ 

MONICA SASHA JONES, 

 Appellant 

 v. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

 Appellee 

 _______________________________ 

FROM THE 66TH DISTRICT COURT OF HILL COUNTY; 

NO. 32,549; HON. F.B. (BOB) MCGREGOR, JR., PRESIDING 

 _______________________________ 

Memorandum Opinion 

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. 

 Appellant Monica Sasha Jones appeals the judgment adjudicating her guilty of 

endangering a child. Through a single issue, she contends that she was denied due 

process when the trial court “re-reviewed the original presentence investigation report.” 

We affirm. 
Issue – Due Process 

 Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion and denied her due 

process when it reviewed a presentence investigation report (at the adjudication 

hearing) that was prepared five years earlier instead of ordering a new one. The record 

does not disclose where that objection or concern was contemporaneously brought to 

the attention of the trial court, however, and this is problematic. 

 To preserve a complaint for appellate review, the complainant must object to the 

purported error. TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A); Saldano v. State, 70 S.W.3d 873, 891 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (holding that failure to make an objection may waive 

constitutional error); Nunez v. State, 117 S.W.3d 309, 319 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 

2003, no pet.) (holding that the failure to timely and specifically object at trial may waive 

even constitutional rights). Furthermore, the objection must be made as soon as the 

ground for same becomes apparent. House v. State, 909 S.W.2d 214, 216 (Tex. App.–

Houston [14th Dist.] 1995), aff’d, 947 S.W.2d 251 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). Appellant did 

not comply with these directives here. The trial court expressly informed the litigants of 

its intent to “re-review the presentence investigation” report. No objection was made by 

appellant. So, she failed to preserve the purported error. See Summers v. State, 942 

S.W.2d 695, 696-97 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no pet.) (holding that the 

appellant waived objection to the failure to order a PSI because the objection was not 

raised below).1

 

 

 1

To the extent that appellant’s issue could also encompass the notion that she was denied 

opportunity to present evidence on punishment, we again note that no one raised that particular ground 

below. Thus, it too was waived. See Harris v. State, 160 S.W.3d 621, 626 (Tex. App.–Waco 2005, pet. 

dism’d). 

2 
3 

Accordingly, we overrule her issue and affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

 

 Brian Quinn 

 Chief Justice 

Do not publish.
#### Sivatharan NATKUNANATHAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

No. 15-73334

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 25, 2017

Sivatharan Natkunanathan, Pro Se

Regina S. Moriarty, Attorney, Bruce R. Ellisen, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division/Appellate Section, Washington, DC, William J. Wilkins, Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Sivatharan Natkunanathan appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s summary judgment allowing the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (“Commissioner”) to proceed with its collection action on Natkunana-than’s outstanding federal tax liability for 2003. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo. *Johnston v. Comm’r,*461 F.3d 1162, 1164 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.

The Tax Court properly granted summary judgment because the settlement officer did not abuse her discretion in sustaining the proposed levy action for tax year 2003. *See*26 U.S.C. § 6330(c)(3) (setting forth matters an appeals officer must consider in making a determination to sustain a proposed levy action); 26 U.S.C. § 6330(c)(2)(B) (permitting challenge to the underlying tax liability if the taxpayer did not receive any statutory notice of deficiency for such tax liability or did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute such tax liability).

Contrary to Natkunanathan’s contentions, the Tax Court properly granted the Commissioner’s motion to permit a levy. *See*26 U.S.C. § 6330(e)(2) (suspension of the levy shall not apply if the underlying tax liability is not at issue in the appeal and the Tax Court determines that the Commissioner has shown good cause not to suspend the levy).

We reject as without merit Natkunana-than’s contentions concerning any pending appeals before the Supreme Court.

Natkunanathan’s motion (Docket Entry No. 56) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Allen Dwight GAILLIOT Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-4572

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: July 19, 2017

Filed: July 25, 2017

Denis Dean, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Arkansas, Fort Smith, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Allen Dwight Gailliot, Pro Se

Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Allen Gailliot directly appeals after he pled guilty to a drug offense and the district court1 sentenced him to a prison term below the calculated Guidelines range. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that Gailliot’s sentence is substantively unreasonable.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. *See United States v. Feemster,*572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (sentences are reviewed under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard; discussing substantive reasonableness); *see also United States v. McCauley,*715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th Cir. 2013) (noting that when district court has varied below Guidelines range, it is “nearly inconceivable” that court abused its discretion in not varying downward further). In addition, having independently reviewed the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION OF CO-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


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


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








I, Michael A. Reisner, Co-Chief Executive Officer and Co-President of ICON Capital Corp., the Manager of the Registrant, in connection with the Annual Report of ICON Leasing Fund Twelve, LLC (the “LLC”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Annual Report”) certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




1.
The Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the  financial condition and results of operations of the LLC.






Date: March 29, 2011




/s/Michael A. Reisner


Michael A. Reisner


Co-Chief Executive Officer and Co-President


ICON Capital Corp.


Manager of ICON Leasing Fund Twelve, LLC
Dolan Chemical Laboratory

4001 Bixby Road

Groveport, OH 43125

T: 614-836-4221, Audinet 210-4221

F: 614-836-4168, Audinet 210-4168

http://aepenv/labs

Water Analysis

Location: Mountaineer Plant Report Date: 3/28/2012

Sample Number: 121097-001 Date Collected: 03/07/2012 07:30 Date Received: 3/7/2012

1st Stage Feed 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Data 

Qual

Arsenic, As 25.1 ug/L 0.1 0.03 DPC 03/20/2012 13:58 EPA 200.8

Beryllium, Be < 0.100 ug/L U 0.5 0.1 DAM 03/19/2012 14:54 EPA 200.7

Selenium, Se 353 ug/L 0.5 0.1 DPC 03/20/2012 13:58 EPA 200.8

Aluminum, Al 0.260 mg/L 0.01 0.002 DAM 03/19/2012 14:55 EPA 200.7

Boron, B 110 mg/L 0.01 0.002 DAM 03/19/2012 14:54 EPA 200.7

Iron, Fe 0.459 mg/L 0.01 0.002 DAM 03/19/2012 14:54 EPA 200.7

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, TKN as N 4.01 mg/L 0.5 0.1 DPC 03/21/2012 EPA 351.2

Nitrate-Nitrite, NO3-NO2, as N 13.5 mg/L 0.2 0.04 DMM 03/08/2012 08:00 SM20 4500NO3 H

Phosphorus, Total, P 0.252 mg/L 0.05 0.01 DPC 03/21/2012 EPA 365.4

Sulfate, SO4 5720 mg/L 600 100 KLG 03/14/2012 EPA 300.1

Sample Number: 121097-002 Date Collected: 03/07/2012 07:30 Date Received: 3/7/2012

2nd Stage Feed 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Data 

Qual

Selenium, Se 11.5 ug/L 0.5 0.1 DPC 03/20/2012 14:03 EPA 200.8

Sample Number: 121097-003 Date Collected: 03/07/2012 07:35 Date Received: 3/7/2012

Bioreactor Effluent 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Data 

Qual

Arsenic, As 1.63 ug/L 0.1 0.03 DPC 03/20/2012 14:08 EPA 200.8

Beryllium, Be < 0.100 ug/L U 0.5 0.1 DAM 03/19/2012 15:02 EPA 200.7

Selenium, Se 2.27 ug/L 0.5 0.1 DPC 03/20/2012 14:08 EPA 200.8

Aluminum, Al 0.945 mg/L 0.01 0.002 DAM 03/19/2012 15:02 EPA 200.7

Boron, B 112 mg/L 0.01 0.002 DAM 03/19/2012 15:02 EPA 200.7

Iron, Fe 3.36 mg/L 0.01 0.002 DAM 03/19/2012 15:02 EPA 200.7

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, TKN as N < 0.100 mg/L U 0.5 0.1 DPC 03/21/2012 EPA 351.2

Nitrate-Nitrite, NO3-NO2, as N < 0.0400 mg/L U 0.2 0.04 DMM 03/08/2012 08:00 SM20 4500NO3 H

Phosphorus, Total, P 0.140 mg/L 0.05 0.01 DPC 03/21/2012 EPA 365.4

Sulfate, SO4 5900 mg/L 600 100 KLG 03/14/2012 EPA 300.1

Mountaineer Plant, 121097 Page 1 of 2
THIS TEST REPORT RELATES ONLY TO THE ITEMS TESTED AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL WITHOUT WRITTEN 

APPROVAL OF THE LABORATORY. ALL TEST RESULTS MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACCREDITING AUTHORITY, 

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

U: Analyte was analyzed and not detected at or above adjusted Method Detection Limit

J: Analyte was positively identified, though the quantitation was below Reporting Limit.

Brian Snyder, Chemist II

Email bssnyder@aep.com Tel. 614-836-4224

Fax 614-836-4168 Audinet 210-4224

Mountaineer Plant, 121097 Page 2 of 2
#### Peter J. MCDANIELS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Belinda STEWART, Religious Programs Manager; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-35275

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 23, 2017 *

Filed October 26, 2017

Peter J. McDaniels, Pro Se

Candie M. Dibble, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office, Corrections Division, Spokane, WA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Washington state prisoner Peter J. McDaniels appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional and statutory violations arising from allegedly inadequate Halal meals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a). We review for an abuse of discretion. *Jackson v. City*
      *722
      *& County of San Francisco,*746 F.3d 963, 958 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying McDaniels’s third motion for mandatory preliminary injunctive relief because McDaniels failed to establish that absent such relief he is likely to suffer irreparable harm. *See id,*(setting forth standard for issuance of preliminary injunction); *Park Vill. Apartment Tenants Ass’n v. Mortimer Howard Trust,*636 F.3d 1150, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011) (stating that mandatory injunctions are not generally granted “unless extreme or very serious damage will result” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

To the extent that McDaniels challenges any other orders, we lack jurisdiction to consider them in this appeal. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (court has jurisdiction to review on an interlocutory basis the district court’s denial of injunctive relief); *see also*28 U.S.C. § 1291 (generally, court has jurisdiction over appeals from final decisions of the district court only); *Chacon v. Babcock,*640 F.2d 221, 222 (9th Cir. 1981) (absent certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), an order is not appealable unless it disposes of all claims as to all parties or judgment is entered).

We reject as without merit McDaniels’s contention that the district court abused its discretion by imposing page limits on McDaniels’s filings.

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

McDaniels’s motion to include new evidence on appeal (Docket Entry No. 4) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

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

                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.2

                   CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

  PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

         The undersigned executive officer of Commonwealth Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Registrant") hereby certifies that the Registrant's Form 10-Q for the three
months ended June 30, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

                               /s/ Charles M. Johnston
                               --------------------------------
                               Name: Charles M. Johnston
                               Title: Chief Financial Officer

Date: August 12, 2002