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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1304

FEN YONG CHEN, a/k/a Fen Yuan Chen,

Petitioner,

versus

PETER D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A72-731-915)

Submitted: October 31, 2007 Decided: November 14, 2007

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed in part; denied in part by unpublished per

curiam opinion.

Fen Yong Chen, Appellant Pro Se. M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Tyrone

Sojourner, Jason Xavier Hamilton, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Washington, D.C.; Javier E. Balasquide, Chief Counsel, DEPARTMENT

OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Fen Yong Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s

Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reopen

deportation proceedings based upon changed circumstances. We have

reviewed the administrative record and the Board’s order and

conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion. See Barry

v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 741, 745 (4th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127

S. Ct. 1147 (2007). We lack jurisdiction to consider Chen’s

argument that he is eligible for withholding of removal under the

Convention Against Torture based on an alleged fear of punishment

for his illegal departure from China or asylum request, because

Chen failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by making this

argument before the Board. See Asika v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 264,

267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we dismiss in part and deny

in part the petition for review. 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 DISMISSED IN PART;

DENIED IN PART
IN RE: E.D.

125PA18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 28, 2019

Wyatt B. Orsbon, Assistant Appellant Defender, for E.D.

Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender.

Robert T. Broughton, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 24th of May 2019 by Respondent to Stay the Mandate and Order Remand to Court of Appeals:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of May 2019."

Davis, J. recused
Exhibit 13.1



CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Annual Report on
Form 20-F of Tomkins plc (the Company) for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), James Nicol, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
and Kenneth Lever, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that,



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ James Nicol        
|By: James Nicol        
|Chief Executive Officer
|                       
|/s/ Kenneth Lever      
|By: Kenneth Lever      
|Chief Financial Officer



June 24, 2005



This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and shall not, except as 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 and Exchange Act of 1934.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF  CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER  OF PACIFIC ENERGY GP, INC.  PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and in connection with the accompanying report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2004 that is being filed concurrently with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned officer of Pacific Energy GP, Inc., the
general partner of Pacific Energy Partners, L.P. (the "Partnership") hereby certifies that:



| |  | /s/GERALD A. TYWONIUKGerald A. Tywoniuk
May 4, 2004
| |  | ---------------------------------------------------

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Pacific Energy Partners, L.P., and will be retained by Pacific Energy Partners, L.P., and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
First Amendment to the Fossil, Inc. 1993 Long-Term Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.8 
 AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE 
 TO THE 

1993 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN 
 OF 
 FOSSIL, INC. 

The following Amendment to the 1993 Long-Term Incentive Plan of Fossil, Inc. (The “Incentive Plan”), as authorized by the Board
of Directors of Fossil, Inc. (the “Company”), is adopted as of the effective date specified herein: 
 The first
sentence of paragraph 4 of the Incentive Plan is amended to read as follows: 
 “Common Stock Available for Award.
There shall be available for Awards granted wholly or partly in Common Stock (including rights or options which may be exercised for or settled in Common Stock) during the term of this Plan an aggregate of 1,750,000 shares of Common Stock.”

 This amendment shall become effective immediately upon the approval of the Amendment by the Stockholders of the Company at the 1995 Annual
Meeting of Stockholders. 
 Adopted this 30th day of March 1995. 
 Fossil, Inc. 
  

			
	By:	 	 /s/ Tom Kartsotis

		 	Tom Kartsotis, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT
      32.2




Written
      Statement of Principal Executive Officer Furnished Pursuant to


18
      U.S.C.
      Section 1350,


as
      Adopted by


Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of HouseRaising, Inc. (the
      "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert V.
      McLemore, President and Founder, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      as
      adopted by 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)
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition as of September 30, 2006 and results of operations
      for
      the quarter ended September 30, 2006 of the Company and its
      subsidiaries.






/s/
      Robert V. McLemore


Robert
      V.
      McLemore


President
      and Founder (Principal Executive Officer)





November
      14, 2006





This
      certification accompanies this 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.


-
          34
          -
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF 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, James
W. Bernau, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this report on Form 10-K/A
of Willamette Valley Vineyards, Inc. fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in this report on Form 10-K/A fairly presents in all
material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
Willamette Valley Vineyards, Inc.


Date:
      January 25, 2010By:
                /s/
      James W. BernauName:
                James
      W. BernauTitle:
                Chief
      Executive Officer




14
EXHIBIT 32.2

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                ------------------------------------------------

     In connection with the accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of
Generations Bancshares, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended June
                             ---------------
30, 2003 (the "Periodic Report"), the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the
         -----------------------
Company, hereby certifies pursuant to Title 18, Section 1350 United States Code,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the
best of his individual knowledge and belief, that the Periodic Report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Periodic Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

Dated: August 14, 2003

/s/  Nita  Elliott
---------------------------------------
Nita  Elliott
Chief  Financial  Officer

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Generations Bancshares, Inc. and will be retained by
Generations Bancshares, Inc. and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.

     The information in this Exhibit 32.2 shall not be deemed "filed" for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.


<PAGE>
#### James E. IVEY, Stephenson Alexander Price, Clarence Hope Newlin, Jr., and Theron Royce Locke, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 21772.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

June 1, 1965.

Rehearing Denied July 14, 1965.

*158Joseph G. Bramberg, Boston, Mass., James R. Venable, B. H. Barton, Atlanta, Ga., for appellant.

Gary B. Blasingame, Macon, Ga., Floyd M. Buford, U. S. Atty., for appellee.

Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and EDGERTON* and SMITH,** Circuit Judges.

*

 Senior Circuit Judge of the D. C. Circuit, sitting by designation.

**

 Of the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

In this alleged conspiracy to “transport in interstate * * * commerce any goods * * * knowing the same to have been * * * taken by fraud,” no substantial argument can be made on behalf of any appellant other than Clarence H. Newlin, Jr. There was overwhelming evidence that warrants their conviction by the jury. As to Newlin, Jr., it is clear from the record that he had sufficient connection with the setting up of the means through which the fraud was perpetrated and the acquisition of the property which became the subject of interstate commerce to warrant the submission to the jury of the issue of his knowledge and participation in the conspiracy.

The judgments are affirmed.
CARDIORENTIS AG v. IQVIA LTD. and Iqvia RDS, Inc.

168A19-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 25, 2019

J. Dickson Phillips, III, Chapel Hill, Jonathan C. Krisko, Charlotte, Attorneys at Law, for Cardiorentis AG

Charles F. Marshall, III, Raleigh, Shepard D. O'Connell, Attorneys at Law, Greensboro, for Iqvia Ltd. and Iqvia RDS, Inc.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd of June 2019 by Plaintiff to admit Kyle Druding Pro Hac Vice:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 25th of June 2019."
Exhibit 23.1


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


     We  have  issued  our  report  dated  August  20,  2009,  accompanying  the
consolidated  financial statements included in the Annual Report of Vasomedical,
Inc. and  Subsidiaries  on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2009.  We
hereby  consent to the  incorporation  by reference of said report in the Annual
Report (Form 10-K) of  Vasomedical,  Inc. and  Subsidiaries  for the fiscal year
ended May 31, 2009.


/s/ Rothstein, Kass & Company, P.C.

ROTHSTEIN, KASS & COMPANY, P.C.



Roseland, NJ

August 20, 2009
DICESARE, et al. v. The CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL AUTHORITY

156A17-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 11, 2019

Russ Ferguson, III, Attorney at Law, James P. Cooney, III, Attorney at Law, Mark J. Horoschak, Attorney at Law, Brian Allen Hayles, Attorney at Law, Debbie W. Harden, Attorney at Law, Michael P. Fischer, Attorney at Law, Matthew Tilley, Attorney at Law, Hampton Y. Dellinger, Attorney at Law, for The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority

Sarah Motley Stone, Attorney at Law, for The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority, d/b/a Carolinas Healthcare System

Reynolds Michael Elliot, Attorney at Law, for DiCesare, Christopher, et al.

Linwood Jones, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for N.C. Hospital Association.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd of June 2019 by Plaintiffs to admit Brendan P. Glackin Pro Hac Vice:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th of June 2019."
Petitioners,

2020

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of Supreme Court

State of Montana

v. ORDER

TIMOTHY CHARLES FOX, COREY

STAPLETON, and the STATE OF MONTANA,

Respondents.

Petitioners, Wrong for Montana and Stephen A. Zabawa (collectively, "WFM"),

seek declaratory judgment on original jurisdiction pursuant to Article VII, Sections 1 and

2, of the Montana Constitution, and M. R. App. P. 14(4). WFM seeks to challenge the

substantive constitutionality of Ballot Initiative No. 190 ("I-190") regarding the

legalization and taxation of marijuana and marijuana products on the grounds that 1-190, if

passed, will create an appropriation that violates Article III, Section 4(1), of the Montana

Constitution.

Pursuant to M. R. App. P. 14(4), an original proceeding in the form of a declaratory

judgment action may be commenced in this Court when urgency or emergency factors

make litigation in the trial courts and the normal appeal process inadequate and the case

involves purely legal questions of statutory or constitutional interpretation that are of

statewide importance. In its petition, WFM argues, with no further explanation or

argument, that "the imminence of 2020 [sic] election provides the urgency underlying the

necessity of original jurisdiction[1" A single conclusory statement asserting urgency does

not suffice to satisfy the requirement of M. R. App. P. 14(4).

More to the point, we have previously held that a challenge to a ballot measure based

on an alleged substantive constitutional infirmity is not an appropriate basis on which to
The statutes governing the process for submission of initiatives and referenda

and legal challenges thereto were substantially amended in 2007. 2007 Mont.

Laws ch. 481. Under the laws as arnended, this Court may exercise original

jurisdiction only to review the proposed ballot statements for initiatives and

referenda and to review the Attorney General's legal sufficiency

deterrnination. The statute does not confer original jurisdiction for any other

purposes. Section 3-2-202(3)(a), MCA. Prior to the 2007 amendrnents, the

statute provided for this Court's consideration of a "constitutional defect in

the substance of a proposed ballot issuell" Section 3-2-202(3)(a)(ii), MCA

(2005). That provision was rernoved. 2007 Mont. Laws ch. 481, § 1.

Hoffman, ¶ 10 (ernphasis added).

We express no opinion on the merits of WFM's constitutional challenge, nor to its

right to pursue this challenge in district court. However, WFM's claim does not present an

appropriate basis on which to invoke this Court's original jurisdiction. Even if it did, WFM

has wholly failed to establish that urgency or emergency factors make litigation in the trial

courts and the normal appeal process inadequate.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Petition for Declaratory judgrnent on

Original Jurisdiction is DENIED and DISMISSED.

The Clerk is directed to provide notice of this Order to all counsel of record.

DATED this C I —day of October, 2020.

Chief Justice

2
O

3

Justices
Brenda MARTIN, Administratrix and Personal Representative of the Estate of Theresa Martin, deceased, Plaintiff v. Rajakumar THOTAKURA, Umalakshmi Thotakura, and Winston Psychiatric Associates, Inc., jointly and severally, Defendants

No. COA18-1247

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 20, 2019

AFFIRMED.
No. 09-9981.

#### LaToyin Davis, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1115, 130 S. Ct. 2425,

176 L. Ed. 2d 938,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3785.

May 3, 2010.

Petition for writ of certio-rari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

JERMAINE LEWIS,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D22-1054

LT Case No. 05-1996-CF-0290551-C

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed August 19, 2022

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court

for Brevard County,

Samuel Bookhardt, Judge.

Jermaine Lewis, Orlando, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, 

and Kaylee D. Tatman, Assistant Attorney 

General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Due to Appellant’s apparent abuse of the legal process by his abusive, 

repetitive, malicious, or frivolous pro se filings attacking his judgment and 

sentence in Brevard County Circuit Court Case Number 05-1996-CF0290551-C, this Court issued an order directing Appellant to show cause 
2

why he should not be prohibited from future pro se filings. See State v. 

Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999). Having carefully considered the 

response and finding it fails to show cause why sanctions should not be 

imposed, we conclude that Appellant is abusing the judicial process and 

should be barred from further pro se filings. 

In order to conserve judicial resources, Appellant is prohibited from 

filing with this Court any further pro se filings concerning Brevard County 

Circuit Court Case No. 05-1996-CF-0290551-C. The Clerk of this Court is 

directed not to accept any further pro se filings concerning the referenced 

case. The Clerk will summarily reject any future filings regarding the 

referenced case unless filed by a member in good standing of The Florida 

Bar. See Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409, 411 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (“Enough 

is enough.”). The Clerk is further directed to forward a certified copy of this 

opinion to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary 

proceedings. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2019); Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 

2d 427, 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

FUTURE PRO SE FILINGS PROHIBITED.

LAMBERT, C.J., COHEN and TRAVER, JJ., concur.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. James Michael DUNN, Appellant.

No. ED 105137

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.

Filed: February 20, 2018

Garrick F. D. Aplin, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.

Jedd C. Schneider, Columbia, MO, for Appellant.

Before Colleen Dolan, P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Lisa S. Van Amburg, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

James M. Dunn ("Defendant") was charged with the class C felony of possession of a controlled substance pursuant to § 195.202. After reviewing the record, we find that (1) the trial court did not plainly err by failing to strike certain testimony *sua sponte* and (2) there was sufficient evidence to establish that Defendant "possessed" methamphetamine and he was *444aware of the nature and character of the illegal substance. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 30.25(b).
No. 09-936.

#### Rodrequis Armani Council, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1008, 130 S. Ct. 1914,

176 L. Ed. 2d 368,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2686.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 333 Fed. Appx. 726.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23-1


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-02105 and 333-02107 on Form S-8; 333-01523, 333-21175, and 333-45281 on
Form S-3 and Post-Effective Amendment No.1 to Registration Statement No.
33-21930-99 on Form S-8 of MCN Energy Group Inc. (the "Corporation"), of our
reports dated February 12, 1998 (which express an unqualified opinion and
include an explanatory paragraph relating to the Corporation's adoption of
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123, "Accounting for
Stock-Based Compensation"), appearing in and incorporated by reference in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Corporation for the year ended December 31,
1997.




DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Detroit, Michigan
February 27, 1998
# C_2017218EN.01001701.xml

| 7.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 218/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 218/17

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8439 — Wärtsilä/CSSC/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 218/07)

On 30 June 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8439. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8439. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---