alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE v. Dora P. BULLOCK

262P19-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2019

Dora P. Bullock, For Bullock, Dora Parker

R.P. Varn, Officer, For Creedmoor Police Department

Derrick Mertz, Special Deputy Attorney General, For State of North Carolina

Thomas C. Morphis, Jr., Attorney at Law

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 17th of July 2019 by State of NC to Dismiss Appeal:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2019."
Supreme Court

No. 201 3

- 2 64

- A ppeal

.

Anthony Orlando :

v. :

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems,

Inc.

, et al

. :

O R D E R

The plaintiff, Anthony Orlando, appeal s from an entry of summary judgment in favor of

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) and OneWest Bank, FSB

. This case

came before the Supreme Court at a session in conference pursuant to Article I, Rule 12A(3)(b)

of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure. The plaintiff filed an action for declaratory

judgment and to quiet title. He contend s that the assignment of his mortgage and subsequent

foreclosure on the mortgage were both invalid. At this time, we proceed to decide this case

without further briefing and argument

.

Our recent decision in Rosano v. Mortg age Elec tronic Registration Sys tems, Inc. 91 A.3d

336 (R.I. 2014) is dispositive of this case. In Rosano

, this Court stated that a purchaser of a

property at foreclosure and current title holder of the property mu st be joined as a party to a

declaratory judgment action seeking to quiet title to the property

. Id

. at 339

- 40. In this action,

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (Deutsche Bank) purchased the plaintiff’s property at

the foreclosure sale and is the current title holder . This appeal must be dismissed because the

plaintiff failed to join Deutsche Bank, an indispensable party, to this action. The plaintiff ’ s other

arguments on appeal alleging questions of material fact, contesting the mortgage assignment , and

1challenging the ability of MERS to serve as mortgagee are without merit. See Ingram v.

Mortg age Elec tronic Registration Sys tems, Inc. , 94 A.3d 523, 528 (R.I. 2014); Bucci v. Lehman

Bro thers Bank FSB , 68 A.3d 1069, 1085

- 89 (R.I. 2013).

Accordingly, the plaintiff ’ s appeal is denied and dismissed.

Entered as an O rder of this Court on this 25 th day of September , 201 4

.

By Order,

/s/

Clerk

2

### R HODE 

### I SLAND 

### S UPREME 

### C OURT 

### C LERK 

### ’ S 

### O FFICE



### Clerk’s Office Order/O pinion Cover Sheet

TITLE OF CASE: Anthony Orlando v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems,

Inc., et al.

CASE NO : No. 201 3

- 2 64

- Ap peal.

COURT: Supreme Court

DATE ORDER FILED: September 2 5 , 2014

JUSTICES: S uttell, C.J. , Goldberg, Flaherty

, R obinson

, and Indeglia, JJ.

WRITTEN BY: N/A

– Court Order

SOURCE OF APPEAL: Providence County Superior Court

JUDGE FROM LOWER COURT :

Associate Justice Bennett R. Gallo

ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL :

For Plaintiff: George E. Babcock, Esq.

For Defendant s : Paul J. Bogosian, Jr. , Esq.
Print
  Cyber Threat Intelligence Integration Center The Cyber Threat Intelligence Integration Center (CTIIC) is a diverse team of professionals from across the Intelligence Community (IC) focused on enhancing the integration of cyber intelligence and collaboration with a broad range of stakeholders to protect the United States against cyber threats.  CTIIC integrates cyber threat intelligence to inform policymakers about cyber threats to U.S. national interests, supports the development of interagency cyber strategy and policy, facilities information sharing capabilities, serves as the lead federal agency for intelligence support for response to significant cyber incidents, and integrates the IC’s approach to cyber collection and cyber investment.
No. 09-1224.

#### Henry Ekperigin, Petitioner v. Department of Health and Human Services.

560 U.S. 907, 130 S. Ct. 3313,

176 L. Ed. 2d 1187,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3936.

May 17, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.

*1188Same case below, 351 Fed. Appx. 441.
---

Exhibit 32.1

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

The undersigned, Kenneth Hicks, of Argentex Mining Corporation,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Argentex Mining
Corporation for the interim period ended July 31, 2008 (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 results of operations of
Argentex Mining Corporation

Dated: September 12, 2008

/s/ Kenneth Hicks Kenneth Hicks President and Director
(Principal Executive Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Argentex Mining
Corporation and will be retained by Argentex Mining Corporation and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
IN RE: James Allen HILL

No. 224P19

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 27, 2019

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, For State of North Carolina.

James Allen Hill, For Hill, James Allen.

Ben R. David, District Attorney.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner on the 10th of June 2019 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Pender County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th of June 2019."
No. 09-1043.

#### Emil D. Anghel, Petitioner v. Saint Francis Hospital and Medical Center.

559 U.S. 1069, 130 S. Ct. 2111,

176 L. Ed. 2d 726,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3345.

April 19, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the Appellate Court of Connecticut denied.

Same case below, 118 Conn. App. 139, 982 A.2d 649.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6829

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

OSCAR ANTONIO GRANDE, a/k/a Pantera,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District

Judge. (1:04-cr-00283-GBL-2; 1:06-cv-01022-GBL)

Submitted: July 22, 2008 Decided: July 28, 2008

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lana Marie Manitta, RICH, ROSENTHAL, MANITTA, DZUBIN & KROEGER,

LLP, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Patricia Tolliver Giles,

Ronald Leonard Walutes, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys,

Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

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

PER CURIAM:

Oscar Antonio Grande seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The

orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Grande has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Grande’s motion

for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
STATE of North Carolina v. Dominique Jacqu WINFIELD, Defendant.

No. COA 19-56

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 2, 2019

AFFIRMED IN PART. DISMISSED IN PART.
Exhibit 32

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

         In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Tiens Biotech Group (USA),
Inc.  (the  "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I,  Jinyuan Li,  Chief  Executive  Officer  (Prinicipal  Executive  Officer) and
President  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, to the
best of my knowledge:

(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 for
the period certified.

         Pursuant to the rules and  regulations  of the  Securities and Exchange
Commission, this certification is being furnished and is not deemed filed.

         Signed on this 15th day of May, 2005.

                                                      /s/ Jinyuan Li
                                                     ---------------
                                                     Jinyuan Li

         In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Tiens Biotech Group (USA),
Inc.  (the  "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Wenjun Jiao, Chief Financial Officer  (Principal  Accounting  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,  to  the  best  of my
knowledge:

(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 for
the period certified.

         Pursuant to the rules and  regulations  of the  Securities and Exchange
Commission, this certification is being furnished and is not deemed filed.

         Signed on this 15th day of May, 2005.

                                                      /s/ Wenjun Jiao
                                                     ----------------
                                                     Wenjun Jiao
*Under 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except in the

limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 97-50989

Summary Calendar

CHARLES RAY COOPER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

HONORABLE MICHAEL J. MC CORMICK, Judge, presiding

judge of the Court of Criminal Appeals; TROY C. BENNETT, Clerk,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Texas

(A-96-CV-220)

June 24, 1998

Before BEFORE WISDOM, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:*

Charles Ray Cooper, Texas prisoner #473763, filed a suit under

42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which he alleged that Clerk Troy Bennett and

Justice Michael McCormick, both of the Texas Court of Criminal

Appeals, unconstitutionally denied him access to the courts. The

district court granted summary judgment for the defendants and,

finding Cooper’s claim to be frivolous, dismissed it under 28
2 See McCormick v. Stalder, 105 F.3d 1059, 1061 (5th Cir.

1997).

2

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Cooper timely filed notice of appeal. We

affirm.

On September 4, 1995, Cooper submitted six copies of a

petition for habeas corpus relief to the Texas Court of Criminal

Appeals. The following month, Clerk Bennett sent Cooper a letter

in which he advised Cooper that he was required to file the

petition in the trial court. Cooper responded by letter, stating

that “if [Cooper’s] gonna construct the plaintiff’s writ, then

consider it as a mandamus.” Bennett did not respond to this

letter. By Cooper’s reasoning, Bennett’s conduct

unconstitutionally hindered his access to the courts. 

The district court concluded that Cooper’s lawsuit was

“absolutely ludicrous,” and that the parties had “spent over one

year litigating [a] non-issue.” We could not agree more. Cooper

has not alleged that Justice McCormick did anything to violate his

constitutional rights. There is not a shred of evidence that

Justice McCormick ever came into contact with the petition Cooper

attempted to file with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in

concluding that Cooper’s claim against Clerk Bennett was

frivolous.2 Indeed, Bennett acted reasonably in advising Cooper

that he was required to file his petition for habeas relief in the

trial court.
3

AFFIRMED.
Aerial Sciences Corp. Proprietary - 2015

Version ASC-RVJET 072515

1

Aerial Sciences Corp.

ASC-RVJET

sUAS Manual
Aerial Sciences Corp. Proprietary - 2015

Version ASC-RVJET 072515

2

ASC-RVJET SPECIFICATIONS

Airframe: EPO Foam and Carbon Fiber

Wing Span: 1.95 Meter

Weight: 10 pounds (maximum with payload)

Propulsion: Single - 900KV Electric Motor 

Propellers: Carbon Fiber 12” – 13” 

Power: (3S) 11.1 Volt or (4S) 14.8 Volt Lithium-Polymer batteries

Max Speed: 54 knots

Flight Time: 2 Hours

Autopilot: GPS Flight Controller/Autopilot

Data Link: FCC approved 433 MHz or 2.4 GHz

Video: FCC approved 1.3 GHz or 5.8 GHz 

Telemetry: Voltage, Current, Altitude, GPS Lat/Long, Ground Speed

Note: For purposes of the FAA Section 333 Exemption Request, the following 

documentation is being provided as a hyperlink due to manufacturer Copyright 

restrictions. Hardcopies of these documents are available upon request and are 

included within the ASC-RVJET sUAS Manual as maintained by Aerial Sciences 

Corp. for access by the PIC at the ground control location during flight operations. 

1. RVJET Airframe Assembly Manual

2. 3DR Pixhawk Flight Controller System

3. Ardupilot Mission Planner Ground Control Station

4. Taranis X9D Radio Transmitter
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5191 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to direct the Secretary of 

Homeland Security to require, as a condition of receiving a homeland 

security grant, that a grant recipient submit reports on each expenditure 

made using grant funds. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 25, 2006 

Mr. WEINER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Homeland Security 

A BILL 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to direct 

the Secretary of Homeland Security to require, as a 

condition of receiving a homeland security grant, that 

a grant recipient submit reports on each expenditure 

made using grant funds. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Homeland Security 

5 Transparency Act of 2006’’. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5191 IH 

1 SEC. 2. EXPENDITURE REPORTS AS A CONDITION OF 

2 HOMELAND SECURITY GRANTS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subtitle H of title VIII of the 

4 Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 451 et seq.) 

5 is amended by adding at the end the following new section: 

6 ‘‘SEC. 890A. EXPENDITURE REPORTS AS A CONDITION OF 

7 HOMELAND SECURITY GRANTS. 

8 ‘‘(a) QUARTERLY REPORTS REQUIRED AS A CONDI9 TION OF HOMELAND SECURITY GRANTS.— 

10 ‘‘(1) EXPENDITURE REPORTS REQUIRED.—As a 

11 condition of receiving a grant administered by the 

12 Secretary, the Secretary shall require the grant re13 cipient to submit quarterly reports to the Secretary 

14 that describe each expenditure made by the recipient 

15 using grant funds. 

16 ‘‘(2) DEADLINE FOR REPORTS.—Each report 

17 required under paragraph (1) shall be submitted not 

18 later than 30 days after the last day of a fiscal quar19 ter and shall describe expenditures made during that 

20 fiscal quarter. 

21 ‘‘(b) PUBLICATION OF EXPENDITURES.—Not later 

22 than one week after receiving a report under subsection 

23 (a), the Secretary shall publish and make publicly avail24 able on the Internet website of the Department a descrip25 tion of each expenditure described in the report.’’. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
3 

•HR 5191 IH 

1 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents 

2 in section 1(b) of such Act is amended by adding at the 

3 end of the items relating to such subtitle the following: 

‘‘Sec. 890A. Expenditure reports as a condition of homeland security grants’’. 

Æ 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
# Court of Appeals
First District of Texas

BILL OF COSTS

No. 01

- 16

- 00276

- CV

Robert Davenport and Jayne Edison

v
.

Dr. Samuel Maxwell Adu

- Lartey and Athletic Orthopedics and Knee Center, P.A. d/b/a AOK Orthopedics

NO. 2014

- 71784 IN THE 189TH DISTRICT COU RT OF HARRIS C OUNTY

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID/DUE STATUS PAID BY

MT FEE SUPP CLK RECORD CLK RECORD
MT FEE FILING STATEWIDE EFILING $10.00 $33.00 $582.00 $10.00 $175.00 $30.00 12/19/2016

05/26/2016 05/06/2016 04/07/2016 04/05/2016 04/05/2016 E

- PAID
PAID
P AID
E

- PAID
E

- PAID
E

- PAID ANT

ANT
ANT
ANT
ANT
ANT



### The costs incurred on appeal to the First Court of Appeals Houston, Texas are $840.00.

Court costs in this case have been taxed in this Court’s judgment

I, Christopher A. Prine , Clerk o f the Court of App eals for the First District of Texas, do hereby certify that this is a true statement of the costs of appeal in this case.IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the seal of the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, this 25 th day of May, 2018

.
MARCUS TYRONE BROADNAX,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-1602

_____________________________/

Opinion filed May 15, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Ross Goodman, Judge.

Marcus Tyrone Broadnax, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. Fla. R. App. P. 9.420(a)(2); see Rivera v. Dep’t of Health, 40 

Fla. Law Weekly D871 (Fla. 1st DCA April 15, 2015).

WOLF, ROWE, and SWANSON, JJ., CONCUR.
STATE v. Torrey GRADY

179A14-3

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 25, 2019

Joseph Finarelli, Special Deputy Attorney General, Teresa M. Postell, Assistant Attorney General, Ben R. David, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Luke M. Everett, Attorney at Law, G. Glenn Gerding, Attorney at Law, for Grady, Torrey Dale.

Christopher A. Brook, Legal Director, Nathan Freed Wessler, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, Brandon J. Buskey, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, for American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, et al.

*452The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 24th of April 2019 by Amicus (UCLA-NCLF) to Substitute Counsel:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 25th of April 2019."
Exhibit 32   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 Zaldiva, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Quarterly Report), we, Nicole Leigh, President, and Robert B. Lees, CFO of the Registrant, 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 Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant.  Date:May 12, 2009By:/s/Nicole LeighNicole Leigh, President and Director  Date:May12, 2009By:/s/Robert B. LeesRobert B. Lees, CFO and Director
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-40688 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus VIRDIS LARON BONNER, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. C-00-CR-227-1

- - - - - - - - - - January 3, 2002 Before REAVLEY, DAVIS and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Virdis Laron Bonner appeals from his resentencing following his guilty-plea conviction for aiding and abetting bank fraud. Bonner’s sole argument on appeal is that the district court erred by failing to consider his economic circumstances before setting his payment schedule. He concedes that, because he failed to object to the restitution order in district court, this issue is reviewed only for plain error. In setting the manner in which, and the schedule according to which, the restitution is to be paid, the sentencing court isNo. 01-40688 -2- required to consider the defendant’s financial situation. See 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(2). In the instant case, the district court adopted the PSR’s findings as to Bonner’s financial status and affirmed its intention to consider Bonner’s ability to pay when determining the payment schedule for his restitution. The instant situation does not constitute reversible error.
AFFIRMED.