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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7348

MICHAEL S. GORBEY,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

STATE OF VIRGINIA, Commonwealth of Virginia, State Capital; COUNTY OF CULPEPER, VIRGINIA; CLERK’S OFFICE, General District Court,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:09-cv-00205-RAJ-JEB)

Submitted: December 17, 2009 Decided: January 5, 2010

Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael S. Gorbey, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Michael S. Gorbey appeals the district court's order

dismissing this action without prejudice because Gorbey failed

to comply with a court order. * We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially

on the reasoning of the district court. Gorbey v. Virginia

,
No. 2:09-cv-00205-RAJ-JEB (E.D. Va. June 25, 2009). 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.

AFFIRMED

* The district court ordered Gorbey to pay a filing fee and complete a questionnaire particularizing the factual allegations of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim or risk dismissal of the action.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Earthquake Myths

Filters

              - (-)science_education(1)
              - science_faqs(12)
              - products_publications(2)
              - multimedia_audio(1)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(1)
              - multimedia_video(3)
              - multimedia_video-149194(2)
              - multimedia_video-149195(1)

## By Location

## By Year

Education        May 20, 2020        Myths and Misconceptions About Induced Earthquakes
Travis JAMES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-1071

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[November 7, 2018]

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Ian Seldin, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and James J. Carney, Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Kuntz, J.

In 1999, the Defendant was found guilty of first-degree premeditated murder and attempted robbery with a firearm. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the first-degree murder conviction, and to 30 years' imprisonment for the attempted robbery conviction. He was later resentenced to 15 years' imprisonment on the attempted robbery count to run concurrently with the life term.

In 2013, the Defendant moved for post-conviction relief based on *Miller v. Alabama* , 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012). He was 16 years old when he committed the crime, and he argued that his 1999 life imprisonment sentence violated the Eighth Amendment. The circuit court denied the motion but, on appeal, this Court reversed and remanded. *See**James v. State* , 183 So.3d 1110 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (per curiam) (opinion issuing mandate); *Cotto v. State* , 141 So.3d 615, 616 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). On remand, the Defendant was resentenced to 55 years' imprisonment.

The Defendant raises multiple issues on appeal, and we affirm without comment with one ministerial exception.

The Defendant argues the circuit court erred by failing to include language in the resentencing order stating that pursuant to section 921.1402(2), Florida Statutes (2017), he was eligible for periodic judicial review of his sentence for capital murder after 25 years. The State "does not object to the case being remanded for the trial *469court to indicate in a written order that Appellant is entitled to sentence review after 25 years." *See, e.g.* , *White v. State* , 244 So.3d 1130, 1130 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) ("The State concedes that the trial court should have provided for sentence review after 25 years as required by section 921.1402(2)(b).").

As we did in *White* , we affirm but remand for the entry of a written order providing that the Defendant is entitled to sentence review after 25 years. The Defendant need not be present for this ministerial sentence correction.

*Affirmed in part and remanded with instructions.*

Taylor and Conner, JJ., concur.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 22

- 20218 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Chacathron Cahee,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:20

- CR

- 658

- 1

Before **Wiener, Elrod,** and **Engelhardt,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Chacathron
Cahee has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Cahee has not filed a response. We have reviewed

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 4, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-20218 Document: 00516496444 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/04/2022No. 22

- 20218

2 counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellat e review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to
withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the **APPEAL IS DISMISSED**

. See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2

. Case: 22-20218 Document: 00516496444 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/04/2022
Exhibit No. 99(A)

           Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm on
                      Management's Assertion on Compliance
                       With Specified Servicing Standards

The Board of Directors and Shareholder
U.S. Bancorp Portfolio Services

            We have examined management's assertion, included in the
accompanying report titled Report of Management, that U.S. Bancorp Portfolio
Services (the Company) complied with the specified servicing standards
identified in Exhibit A (the specified servicing standards) to the Report of
Management during the period from February 24, 2004 to June 30, 2004. Management
is responsible for the Company's compliance with the specified servicing
standards. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion
regarding the Company's compliance based on our examination.

            Our examination was made in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,
accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's
compliance with the specified servicing standards and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our
examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does
not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the specified
servicing standards.

            In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied
with the aforementioned specified servicing standards during the period from
February 24, 2004 to June 30, 2004, is fairly stated, in all material respects.


January 4, 2005                                 /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Minneapolis, Minnesota                          ---------------------
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULES 13A-14(A) AND 15D-14(A), AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Christopher J. Zyda, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Luminent Mortgage
Capital, Inc. (the Registrant);2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The Registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant
and we have: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)
    
    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; andc)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the Registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrants fourth
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to
materially affect, the Registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and5.
    
    The Registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
to the Registrants auditors and the audit committee of Registrants board
of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    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: March 3, 2004 By:
    
    /s/ CHRISTOPHER J. ZYDAChristopher J. ZydaSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

Certification of principal executive officer: 

 

I, R.Christopher Hoehn-Saric, certify, as required by Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of eSylvan, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 15d-14) for the registrant and we have: 

 

a) designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures 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 quarterly report isbeing prepared; 

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report; and 

 

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the registrant’s board of directors (which performs the equivalent function): 

 

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and 

 

6. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have indicated in this quarterlyreport whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard tosignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses. 

 

August 14, 2003
Steven T. HUMPHREY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-2698

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 27, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Ryan TOWNSEND, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-4398

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

December 04, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Darryl SCHNEIDER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Sybil MURPHY, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1538

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

December 20, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Petitioner's petition for writ of certiorari is denied.

LaROSE, C.J., and SLEET and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-14-00812-CV

Bobbie White, Appellant

v.

Josefino Bencomo III, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 26TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 14-0374-C26, HONORABLE BILLY RAY STUBBLEFIELD, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Bobbie White has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, explaining that

the parties have reached a settlement agreement and have agreed to dismiss this appeal. We grant

the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a).

__________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Bourland

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: January 8, 2016
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 142 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 142

Electing Members to the Joint Committee of Congress on the Library and 
                    the Joint Committee on Printing.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 9, 2013

  Mrs. Miller of Michigan (for herself and Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                        on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Electing Members to the Joint Committee of Congress on the Library and 
                    the Joint Committee on Printing.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. ELECTION OF MEMBERS TO JOINT COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS ON THE 
              LIBRARY AND JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRINTING.

    (a) Joint Committee of Congress on the Library.--The following 
Members are hereby elected to the Joint Committee of Congress on the 
Library, to serve with the chair of the Committee on House 
Administration and the chair of the Subcommittee on the Legislative 
Branch of the Committee on Appropriations:
            (1) Mr. Harper.
            (2) Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania.
            (3) Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California.
    (b) Joint Committee on Printing.--The following Members are hereby 
elected to the Joint Committee on Printing, to serve with the chair of 
the Committee on House Administration:
            (1) Mr. Harper.
            (2) Mr. Nugent.
            (3) Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania.
            (4) Mr. Vargas.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 31.3

CERTIFICATION

I, Bruce C. Cozadd, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K/A of Jazz Pharmaceuticals public limited company;
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 3. | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                            |  |     |  |                                                     
|--------------------------- |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Date:        April 24, 2018 |  | By: |  | /s/ Bruce C. Cozadd                                 
|                            |  |     |  | Bruce C. Cozadd
Chairman 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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 99-60328

Summary Calendar

____________________

ROBERT E. LEWIS,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CHARLIE WEST, Owner, Mid-Delta Bonding Company; TIMOTHY 

TOWNSEND, Police Officer, Cleveland, MS; GILL DENLEY, 

Police Officer, Cleveland, MS, also known as John Doe Gill;

CLEVELAND POLICE DEPARTMENT; H. M. “MACK” GRIMMETT, Sheriff,

Bolivar County, MS; CHARLES ANDERSON; BILLY JOE ESTES; LAWRENCE

MELLEN; ROSIE S. SIMMONS, Circuit Clerk, Bolivar County, MS; 

KIRK FORDICE; RICHARD COLEMAN; MID-DELTA BONDING COMPANY,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi 

(2:97-CV-16-B) 

_________________________________________________________________

January 18, 2000

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert E. Lewis, Mississippi prisoner # 79267, appeals, pro

se, the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint (claimed

extradited improperly from Tennessee, beaten, and denied medical

treatment), pursuant to the defendants’ FED. R. CIV. P. 50 motion

for judgment as a matter of law, made at the non-jury evidentiary

hearing before the magistrate judge. The district court adopted

the magistrate judge’s recommendation in this regard.
- 2 -

Lewis, who did not request a jury trial, contends that the

magistrate judge did not have such hearing-authority, because he

did not so consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). However, as the

district court noted, the magistrate judge had such authority,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), in conjunction with

submitting a report and recommendation. See McCarthy v. Bronson,

500 U.S. 136, 139 (1991) (noting that statute’s text indicates

“Congress intended to authorize the nonconsensual reference of all

prisoner petitions to a magistrate [judge]”) (emphasis in

original).

Lewis also asserts that the court erred by finding that

defendants West, Townsend, and Denley were not acting under color

of state law when they apprehended him, following his failure to

appear pursuant to the terms of his bail bond. But, Lewis did not

provide on appeal a transcript of the evidentiary hearing, as is

his burden. See United States v. Coveney, 995 F.2d 578, 587 (5th

Cir. 1993); see also FED. R. APP. P. 10(b); FED. R. APP. P. 11(a).

Because Lewis failed to do so, we cannot properly review his claim.

See United States v. Hinojosa, 958 F.2d 624, 632 (5th Cir. 1992).

The other “issues” raised by Lewis in his appellate brief

address the merits of his claim, which the district court did not

reach, pursuant to the adopted report and recommendations.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 99.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


I, Jeffrey N. Tabin, Controller of First Aid Direct, Inc., certify that:

1.  The  periodic  report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a)
or  15(d);  and

2.  Information  contained  in  the  report  fairly  presents,  in  all material
respects,  the  financial  condition  and  results  of operations of the issuer.


Date:  July 15, 2003


                                   /s/  Jeffrey N. Tabin
                                   ---------------------
                                   Jeffrey N. Tabin
                                   Controller


<PAGE>
E.M., a Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3048

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed December 21, 2018

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Ali L. Hansen, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marjorie Vincent-Tripp, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to the State's appropriate concession of error, we remand for the trial court to conform the amended written disposition order entered in lower court case number 2016-CJ-2438 to its oral pronouncement regarding the term of confinement. E.M.'s amended disposition orders are otherwise affirmed.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED for correction of amended disposition order.

EVANDER, EDWARDS and HARRIS, JJ., concur.