alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1713

JULIO R. WASHINGTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HAMPTON ROADS SHIPPING ASSOCIATION; ILA LOCAL 1248; ILA LOCAL 970; ILA SENIORITY BOARD; MANAGEMENT/ILA SENIORITY COMMITTEE; HAMPTON ROADS SHIPPING ASSOCIATION/ILA CONTRACT BOARD; HAMPTON ROADS DISTRICT COUNCIL LOCAL INDUSTRY GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE, Defendants - Appellees, LEE BOOTHBY, Movant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (CA-01-880-2) Submitted: January 27, 2003 Decided: March 12, 2003 Before LUTTIG and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Thomas R. Knoll, Sr., Staunton, Virginia; Lee Boothby, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Dean T. Buckius, Christopher Ambrosio, VANDEVENTER BLACK, L.L.P., Norfolk, Virginia; Deborah C. Waters, RUTTER, WALSH, MILLS, & RUTTER, L.L.P., Norfolk, Virginia; Charles S. Montagna, MONTAGNA, BREIT, KLEIN, CAMDEN, L.L.P., Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Julio Washington appeals the district court’s judgment granting summary judgment to the defendants and dismissing his employment discrimination complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. SeeWashington v. Hampton Roads , CA-01-880-2 (E.D. Va. May 31, 2002). Having granted the motion to submit the case on briefs, we dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conclusions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 Longview Fibre Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, L. J. McLaughlin, Senior Vice President-Finance, Secretary and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(1) | The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: May 10, 2006



/s/    L. J. MCLAUGHLINL. J. MCLAUGHLIN Senior Vice President-Finance, Secretary and Treasurer
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

File Name: 19a0096n.06

Nos. 16-4103/4115

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

v.

DARRELL D. MOORE,

Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF 

OHIO

BEFORE: BATCHELDER, GILMAN, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges 

ROGERS, Circuit Judge. Darrell Moore pleaded guilty to one count of felon in possession 

of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). When a § 922(g) violator has at least three violent felonies 

on his criminal record, he may be sentenced as an armed career criminal—a designation that 

triggers a steep fifteen-year mandatory minimum sentence, § 924(e)(1). Moore had three prior 

Ohio convictions—for robbery, aggravated robbery, and aggravated assault—which the 

Government contends are predicate violent felonies. But Moore was not sentenced as an armed 

career criminal, because the district court held that only one of those convictions (Ohio aggravated 

assault) is a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act. 

Subsequent decisions by this court have brought into question the district court’s ACCA 

holdings. First, this court in United States v. Patterson held that Ohio aggravated robbery is

categorically a violent felony under the ACCA. 853 F.3d 298, 302–03 (6th Cir. 2017). Second, 

this court in United States v. Burris held that Ohio aggravated assault is divisible into two variants, 
Nos. 16-4103/4115, United States v. Moore

-2-

Ohio Rev. Code § 2903.12(A)(1) and (A)(2), and that a conviction under § 2903.12(A)(2) remains 

an ACCA predicate. 912 F.3d 386, 405 (6th Cir. 2019); id. at 410 (Rogers, J., concurring in part 

and in the judgment); id. at 410–11 (Kethledge, J., concurring in the judgment). It is unclear on 

this record which variant Moore was convicted of, and a look at the so-called Shepard documents

is required. Third, the district court held that Ohio robbery under Ohio Rev. Code § 2911.02(A)(2)

does not qualify under the ACCA because it requires a mens rea of only recklessness. But in doing 

so, the court relied on yet another since-reversed precedent. Following the Supreme Court’s 

decision in Voisine v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2272 (2016), this court has held that recklessness 

may suffice under the elements clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act. See United States v. 

Verwiebe, 874 F.3d 258, 252 (6th Cir. 2017). 

In light of these developments with respect to each of Moore’s three possible predicate 

offenses, we vacate Moore’s sentence and remand for resentencing consistent with these changes 

in the law.
Exhibit 32.2

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 Micronetics, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended September 27, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Carl Lueders, Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 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.



|                  |  |        |  |                                                                            
|----------------- |  | ------ |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|November 12, 2008 |  |        |  | /s/ CARL LUEDERS                                                           
|                  |  | Name:  |  | Carl Lueders                                                               
|                  |  | Title: |  | Acting Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                            7865
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      170
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  8035
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   13173
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               62
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       13111
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     13173
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   961
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       48
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   273
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   623
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     17
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 17
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        17
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# Data for Table B46

# RSEs for Table B46
DENY; and Opinion Filed September 12, 2018.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-18-00980-CV

IN RE TUNAD ENTERPRISES, INC., Relator

Original Proceeding from the 417th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 417-00618-2016

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Bridges, Brown, and Boatright

Opinion by Justice Boatright

The underlying proceeding is a suit to recover a security deposit brought by the real party 

in interest Martin Palma d/b/a Liz Palma (“Palma”) against his former landlord, relator Tunad 

Enterprises, Inc. In this original proceeding, relator complains of the trial court’s August 30, 2018 

written order denying relator’s request for attorney’s fees incurred in a prior mandamus proceeding 

in this Court and of the trial court’s failure to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law

following that order. Relator also complains of the trial court’s verbal rulings on August 30, 2018 

compelling relator to respond to discovery in aid of judgment, ordering $10,000 as sanctions 

against relator, and requiring payment of the monetary sanctions before trial despite relator’s 

purported inability to pay. To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show both that the 

trial court has clearly abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate appellate remedy. In re 

Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). Based on the record 

before us, we conclude relator has not shown it is entitled to the relief requested. 
–2–

Relator has an adequate remedy on appeal regarding the denial of fees for the prior 

mandamus proceeding. See In re Cousins, 551 S.W.3d 913, 920 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2018, orig. 

proceeding) (ordinary appeal of the order denying motion for fees provided adequate remedy 

where relator could pursue his claims, “eventual outcome had not been pre-determined by trial 

court's ruling, and there was no danger that an appellate court would be unable to cure any error 

through ordinary appeal or that error could not be made part of the appellate record”). 

As for the verbal rulings, the trial court has not signed a written sanctions order or a written 

discovery order, and relator has not provided a reporter’s record of the hearing at which the verbal 

rulings were made. Under these circumstances, the verbal rulings are not subject to mandamus 

review and may not be stayed. See In re Cokinos, No. 05-16-01331-CV, 2016 WL 7163968, at *1 

(Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 16, 2016, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (denying mandamus where

relator did not file a written order or record of a verbal order) (internal citations omitted); see also 

In re Bledsoe, 41 S.W.3d 807, 812 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, orig. proceeding) (verbal ruling 

is subject to mandamus review only if it is clear, specific, and enforceable).

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a) 

(the court must deny the petition if the court determines relator is not entitled to the relief sought).

180980F.P05

/Jason Boatright/

JASON BOATRIGHT

JUSTICE
Bar Docket No. 22161

#### In the Matter of Daniel J. Arkell, *Respondent.*

Dated this 7th day of July, 2016.

(377 P.3d 414)

In a letter signed June 30, 2016, addressed to the Clerk of the Appellate Courts, respondent Daniel J. Arkell, an attorney admitted to practice law in Kansas, voluntarily surrendered his license to practice law in Kansas, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 217 (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 390).

At the time the respondent surrendered his license, five complaints had been docketed by the office of the Disciplinary Administrator for investigation. The complaints alleged that the respondent violated Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 442) (competence); 1.7 (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 519) (conflicts of interest); 3.3 (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 601) (candor to the tribunal); 4.4 (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 632) (transaction with persons other than clients); and 8.4(b), (c), (d), and (g) (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 672) (misconduct).

This court, having examined the files of the office of the Disci-plinaiy Administrator, finds that the surrender of the respondent s license should be accepted and that the respondent should be disbarred.

It Is Therefore Ordered that Daniel J. Arkell be and he is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in Kansas and his license and privilege to practice law are hereby revoked.

It Is Further Ordered that the Clerk of the Appellate Courts strike the name of Daniel J. Arkell from the roll of attorneys licensed to practice law in Kansas.

It Is Further Ordered that this order shall be published in the Kansas Reports, that the costs herein shall be assessed to the respondent, and that the respondent forthwith shall comply with Supreme Court Rule 218 (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 401).
# Data for Table B44

# RSEs for Table B44
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000820474
<NAME> OPTIMUMCARE CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         113,313
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,079,221
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,253,808
<PP&E>                                          23,325
<DEPRECIATION>                                  40,380
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,699,027
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          626,167
<BONDS>                                        240,334
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,989
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,989,966
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,699,027
<SALES>                                      2,765,795
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,766,261
<CGS>                                        2,135,674
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,464,909
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,859
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                301,352
<INCOME-TAX>                                    46,631
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            254,720
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   254,720
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     $.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1
 
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting.
 DATE: October 31, 2008
    By:
    /s/ Henry L. NordhoffHenry L. NordhoffChairman and Chief Executive Officer
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-10345

Summary Calendar

 

CHARLES A. WATSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF

CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL

DIVISION; ROBERT LAMBERT, Warden,

John Middleton Unit; JAMES DUKE; 

THOMAS J. MEDART, Warden, Price

Daniel Unit; BRIAN HORN, Warden; 

WYATT ALLEN HOWELL, M.D.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:97-CV-62

- - - - - - - - - -

January 14, 1999

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Charles A. Watson, Texas prisoner # 738898, argues that the

district court erred in granting the defendants’ motion for

summary judgment and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. 

Watson alleged that he was wrongfully deprived of his personal

property, that he was wrongly disciplined for refusing to perform
No. 98-10345

-2-

work, and that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference

to his serious medical needs. 

We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties

and affirm the dismissal of the property-loss claim and the

denial-of-medical-care claim substantially for the reasons given

by the district court. See Watson v. Texas Department of

Criminal Justice, No. 1:97-CV-62 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 20, 1998).

We have also considered Watson’s claim that was not

addressed in the district court that he was wrongfully charged

with the refusal to work in light of his medical condition. In

light of the nature of the penalty imposed following the

disciplinary hearing, Watson failed to demonstrate that the

charge and punishment, even if improper, resulted in a

constitutional violation. See Madison v. Parker, 104 F.3d 765,

768 (5th Cir. 1997).

AFFIRMED.
III 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 349 

Supporting and encouraging greater support for Veterans Day. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 10, 2009 

Mr. BURR (for himself, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. ISAKSON, and Mr. JOHANNS) 

submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting and encouraging greater support for Veterans 

Day. 

Whereas veterans of service in the United States Armed 

Forces have served the Nation with honor and at great 

personal sacrifice; 

Whereas the people of the United States owe the security of 

the Nation to those who have defended it; 

Whereas on Veterans Day each year, the Nation honors those 

who have defended democracy by serving in the Armed 

Forces; 

Whereas veterans continue to provide a valuable service in 

their communities across the Nation and are important 

members of society; 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 349 ATS 

Whereas we must honor and express our sincere gratitude to 

all our veterans for their unwavering commitment to 

country, justice, and democracy; 

Whereas the observance of Veterans Day is an expression of 

faith in democracy, faith in United States values, and 

faith that those who fight for freedom will defeat those 

whose cause is unjust; 

Whereas major hostilities of World War I were formally 

ended at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th 

month of 1918 by the signing of the Armistice near 

Compie`gne, France; and 

Whereas section 6103(a) of title 5, United States Code, provides that ‘‘Veteran’s Day, November 11’’ is a legal public holiday: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate encourages— 

2 (1) the people of the United States to dem3 onstrate their support for veterans on Veterans Day 

4 each year by treating that day as a special day of 

5 reflection; and 

6 (2) schools and teachers to educate students on 

7 the great contributions veterans have made to the 

8 United States and its history, both while serving as 

9 members of the United States Armed Forces and 

10 after completing their service. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 23(a)

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-37175, 33-44541, 33-44542, 33-58613, 33-59253,
33-59255, 333-07949, 333-34135, 333-34161, 333-34165, 333-47847 and 333-63711)
and Form S-4 (No. 333-71595) of Santa Fe Energy Resources, Inc. of our report
dated March 1, 1999 appearing on page 51 of this Form 10-K.


PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

Houston, Texas
March 5, 1999