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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7265

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CHARLES RAY FRAZIER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Richard L. Voorhees,

District Judge. (CR-92-46-V, CA-96-11-2-V)

Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 14, 1999

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Ray Frazier, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles Ray Frazier seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. See United States v. Frazier, Nos. CR-92-46-V;

CA-96-11-2-V (W.D.N.C. June 30, 1998). 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
#### Stephanie HAGERMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 03-2355.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 7, 2004.

Decided April 27, 2004.

Stephanie Hagerman, Appellant pro se.

Teri Christine Smith, Social Security Administration, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Stephanie Hagerman seeks review of the magistrate judge’s * order affirming the Commissioner’s denial of Social Security Supplemental Income (“SSI”) benefits pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(f) (2003). Our review of the record discloses that the *119Commissioner’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. In addition, we note that new evidence submitted on appeal need not be considered because it fails to meet the requirements set forth in *Borders v. Heckler, 111*F.2d 954, 955 (4th Cir.1985). Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate judge’s order. *Hagerman v. Barnhart,*No. CA-02-956-1 (S.D.W.Va. Sept. 5, 2003). 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 parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Ronald G. Farrell, Chairman of the Board and ChiefExecutive Officer ofTri-S Security Corporation (the “Company”), do herebycertify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

1.                                       The Quarterly Report on Form10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2005 (the “PeriodicReport”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §§78m or 78o(d)); and

 

2.                                       The information contained inthe Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated: May 11, 2005 |                    |
|---------------------|-------------------------|
|                |                    |
|                | /s/Ronald G. Farrell    |   |
|                | Ronald G. Farrell,      |
|                | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID TIPPITT,

Plaintiff,

v.

LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF 

NORTH AMERICA,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-00125-VC 

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION RE 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT BRIEFING

Re: Dkt. No. 32

The parties' stipulated briefing schedule for summary judgment is adopted. All other 

deadlines, including the deadlines for cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record, 

will remain unchanged.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 6, 2017

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-00125-VC Document 33 Filed 06/06/17 Page 1 of 1
1

Case No. 17-cv-00220-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART AVANCI’S RENEWED MOTION TO SEAL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,

Defendant.

Case No.17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART AVANCI’S 

RENEWED MOTION TO SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 1280, 1291

The Court finds that Avanci has not been diligent in filing its motions to seal. If Avanci 

fails to file any future sealing motion by 10:00 a.m. the business day in advance of the day on 

which Avanci information will be used at trial, the Court will deny Avanci’s motion with 

prejudice.

Before the Court is Avanci’s renewed administrative motion to seal. Applying the 

compelling reasons standard, the Court orders as follows:

Document Portions of Pages Ruling

JX0116 2, 17, 48-49, 73-74, 97-98, and 

121-122, selected portions

DENIED.

JX0116 126, selected portion GRANTED.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1294 Filed 01/14/19 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 17-cv-00220-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART AVANCI’S RENEWED MOTION TO SEAL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Document Portions of Pages Ruling

JX0116 127-135, selected portions DENIED.

JX0116 137, selected portions DENIED.

Avanci must refile by 6:00 p.m. Pacific Time on Monday, January 14, 2019, JX0116 

publicly with redactions consistent with this order and this Court’s Order Granting in Part and 

Denying in Part Qualcomm’s Motion to Seal, ECF No. 1263.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 14, 2019

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1294 Filed 01/14/19 Page 2 of 2
Gary W. TURLEY, II, DOC #508345, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-3798

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 7, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 78 (Monday, April 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20121-20122]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10033]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

Music Advisory Panel; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that a meeting of 
the Music Advisory Panel (Services to Composers Section) to the 
National Council on the Arts will be held on May 19, 1995, 9 a.m. to 
4:30 p.m. This meeting will be held in Room M-14, at the Nancy Hanks 
Center, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506.
    A portion of this meeting will be open to the public from 2:30 p.m. 
to 4:30 p.m. for a policy discussion and guidelines review.
    The remaining portion of this meeting from 9 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. is 
for the purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and 
recommendation on applications for financial assistance under the 
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as 
amended, including information given in confidence to the agency by 
grant applicants. In accordance with the determination of the Chairman 
of February 8, 1994, these sessions will be closed to the public 
pursuant to subsections (c)(4), (6) and (9)(B) of section 552b of Title 
5, United States Code.
    Any person may observe meetings, or portions thereof, of advisory 
panels which are open to the public, and may be permitted to 
participate in the panel's discussions at the discretion of the panel 
chairman and with the approval of the full-time Federal employee in 
attendance.
    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please 
contact the Office of Special Constituencies, National Endowment for 
the Arts, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506, 202/682-
5532, TYY 202/682-5496, at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting.
    Further information with reference to this meeting can be obtained 
from Ms. Yvonne Sabine, Committee Management Officer, National 
Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506, or call 202/682-5433.

    [[Page 20122]] Dated: April 17, 1995.
Yvonne M. Sabine,
Director, Office of Council and Panel Operations, National Endowment 
for the Arts.
[FR Doc. 95-10033 Filed 4-21-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7537-01-M
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
RULE 13a-14(a) UNDER THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Stinger Systems, Inc., for the period
ended September 30, 2006;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of 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(s) 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 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;
and(c)
    
    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 that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting;
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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 the 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 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: November 14, 2006
    By:
    /s/ Robert F. GruderRobert F. GruderChief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                       2,373,608
<SECURITIES>                                   246,429
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,824
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               613,578
<PP&E>                                      40,051,565<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                            (22,254,267)<F2>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              21,053,737
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,007,295
<BONDS>                                     21,121,965<F3>
<COMMON>                                   (1,075,523)<F4>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                21,053,737
<SALES>                                      5,296,292
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,296,292
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,214,068<F5>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             986,305
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 95,919
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             95,919
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    95,919
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0<F6>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F6>
<FN>
<F1>Includes apartment complexes of $39,652,907 and deferred expenses of
 $398,658.
<F2>Includes depreciation of $22,164,276 and amortization of deferred expneses,
$89,991.
<F3>Represents mortgage note payable.
<F4>Represents total equity of general partners ($269,302) and limited partners
($806,221).
<F5>Includes oprating expenses $2,160,952, real estate tax $483,799,
 depreciation and amortization of $1,568,300 adn minority interest of $1,017.
<F6>Net income allocated $960 to general partners and $94,959 to limited
partners for the nine months ended 9/30/95.  Net income is $3.04 per unit for
30,000 units outstanding.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES *of*America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Timothy Earl BROWN, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 03-4820.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 28, 2004.

Decided May 11, 2004.

Timothy Earl Brown, Appellant pro se. Regan Alexandra Pendleton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c))

PER CURIAM:

Timothy Earl Brown appeals the district court’s order declining to grant a downward sentencing departure, following this Court’s limited remand. The sole conten*882tion Brown pursues on appeal is that he was entitled to a new sentencing hearing upon remand so that he could be present during resentencing and be given an opportunity to allocute. We conclude that a new sentencing hearing was unnecessary to decide the issue on remand. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order upon remand. 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*
Exhibit 23

              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
of Four Oaks  Fincorp,  Inc. on Form S-4 (File No.  333-148944),  Form S-8 (File
Nos.  333-30677,  333-69792 and 333-152159) and Form S-3 (File No. 333-33527) of
our reports  dated March 12, 2009,  with respect to the  consolidated  financial
statements of Four Oaks Fincorp,  Inc. and the effectiveness of internal control
over financial reporting, which reports appear in Four Oaks Fincorp, Inc.'s 2008
Annual Report on Form 10-K.


/s/ Dixon Hughes PLLC

Raleigh, North Carolina
March 12, 2009
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6947** 

HIRAM LOPEZ , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

WARDEN TIMOTHY S. STEWART; LIEUTENANT MARK LATHROP , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Richard D. Bennett , District Judge. ( 1:15

- cv
- 02747

- RDB )

Submitted : December 15, 2016 Decided: December 20, 2016

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Hiram Lopez, Appellant Pro Se. Rebecca Ann Koch, Assistant United States Attorney, Katherine Anne Day, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Hiram Lopez appeals the district court ’ s order denying
relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Lopez v. Stewart , No. 1:15

- cv
- 02747

- RDB (D. Md. filed
June 14, 2016; entered June 15, 2016) . We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Jonathan BANKO and Tamayra Banko, Appellants, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Appellee.

No. 3D18-1770

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed June 19, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Levi JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-3561

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed June 11, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

935 KA 16-00087 PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
STEVEN P. BROCKWAY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 2.)

BETZJITOMIR LAW OFFICE, BATH (SUSAN BETZJITOMIR OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
BROOKS T. BAKER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BATH (JOHN C. TUNNEY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Steuben County Court (Joseph W. Latham, J.), rendered July 31, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of tampering with a witness in the third degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Same memorandum as in People v Brockway ([appeal No. 1] ___ AD3d ___ [Mar. 31, 2017]).

Entered: March 31, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
STATE of Louisiana v. Donovan ALEXANDER

NO. 2019-KK-O645

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 26, 2019

And, whereas, the Court has this date, pursuant to Article 5, Section 5, of the Constitution of Louisiana, made and issued the following order, to wit-"It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the District Court and the Court of Appeal send up the record in Duplicate of the case; and that counsel for all parties be notified."

Now, therefore, the said District Court and the Court of Appeal is hereby commanded, in the name of the State of Louisiana and of this Honorable Court, to send up forthwith to this Court, in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 1, at the City of New Orleans, the record in duplicate of the above-entitled case.

GUIDRY, J., would deny.
United State Securities and Exchange Commission Edgar Filing








EXHIBIT 10.1




Modification Agreement For Zoom Employee’s Severance Agreement




Zoom Technologies, Inc., Zoom Telephonics, Inc. (together, “Zoom”) and the undersigned employee hereby agree that no Zoom Technologies option granted from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009 is or will be subject to accelerated vesting notwithstanding the provisions of any prior agreement entered into between Zoom and the undersigned employee.  This agreement applies to any options issued in 2009, no matter whether they’ve been issued prior to the date of this agreement or not.  In no event will accelerated vesting occur for such options.




Agreed:







			
	 
	 
	Frank Manning, Zoom’s CEO & President


	Employee Name (print)

	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	Signature

	 
	Signature


	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	Date

	 
	Date
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7314

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMES J. SAUNDERS, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (4:01-cr-30083-JLK-5; 4:15-cv-80839-JLK-RSB)

Submitted: January 17, 2017 Decided: January 20, 2017

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James J. Saunders, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jean Barrett Hudson, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, 

Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

James J. Saunders, Jr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Saunders has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny Saunders’ motion for 

the appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED