alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Victor SAMULIAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-4826

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed July 3, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Stream Global Services, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned, Stephen C. Farrell, Vice President of Finance and Treasurer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |  |  |                                                     
|--------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 16, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/    Stephen C. Farrell                           
|                      |  |  |  | Stephen C. Farrell                                  
|                      |  |  |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 8116** 

DION ORLANDO TAYLOR , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. SGT. MICHAEL LANG, in individual and official capacity , Defendant

- Appellee , and
MAJOR EICHELBERGER; WARDEN LEVERN COHEN; LT. S. LOWERY; M. E. MONTOUTH, Grievance Coordinator, all in individual and official capacities, Defendant s .

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Rock Hill
. Henry M. Herlong, Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 0:10

- cv - 02327

- HMH )

Submitted : May 24, 2013 Decided: June 13, 2013

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Dion Orlando Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas A. Bendle, William T. Young, III, HOWELL, GIBSON & HUGHES, PA, Beaufort, South Carolina, for Appellee.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Dion Orlando Taylor, a South Carolina state prisoner, appeals from a jury ve rdict in favor of prison guard Michael Lang on Taylor’s claim that Lang subjected him to an excessive use of force, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Taylor also moves for the preparation of a transcript at the g overnment’s expense. We deny the motio n and affirm. Considering Taylor’s challenge to several of the district court’s evidentiary rulings, we find that Taylor has not plausibly sug gested an abuse of discretion. United States v. Lighty , 616 F.3d 321, 351 (4th Cir. 2010) ; United States v. Benkahla , 530 F.3d 300, 309 (4th Cir. 2008)
. Further, assuming that the district court dismissed Taylor’s official

- capacity claim against Lang, we find that such a disposition was clearly appropriate because Taylor failed to allege or otherwise establis h facts suggesting his entitlement to injunctive relief. Shenandoah Valley Network v. Capka , 669 F.3d 194, 201

- 02 (4th Cir. 2012) ; Revene v. Charles C nty
. Comm’ rs , 882 F.2d 870, 874

- 75 (4th Cir. 1989)
. Finally, there is no support in the record for Taylor’s speculation that the district court failed to record the pre

- trial evidentiary hearing. See Wyatt v. United States , 591 F.2d 260, 265 (4th Cir. 1979) (general presumption of regularity attends all ju dicial acts ) . Even assuming such an4 omission occurred , Taylor has not established resulting prejudice sufficient to warrant a new trial. United States v.
Brown , 202 F.3d 691, 696 (4th Cir. 2000)
. Accordingly, we conclude that Taylor has not made the showing necessary to justify the preparation of a transcript at
g overnment expense , deny his motion for such, and affirm the jury’s verdict. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequatel y presented in the materials before this 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-8 (File Nos. 333-30677 and
333-69792) and Form S-3 (File No. 333-33527) of our report dated March 18, 2005,
on our audits of the consolidated financial statements of Four Oaks Fincorp,
Inc. as of December 31, 2004 and for the year then ended, which report is
included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

/s/ Dixon Hughes PLLC



Sanford, North Carolina
March 29, 2005

                                       14
Charles F. FRAYER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. PROTECTED TRUST, LLC, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-4253

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 05, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
**Exhibit 23.2**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

StreamGlobal Services, Inc. 

Wellesley, MA 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-144447) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-152646 and 333-162421) of Stream Global Services, Inc. (formerly Global BPO Services Corp.) of our reportdated March 17, 2008, relating to the 2007 consolidated financial statements of Stream Global Services, Inc. (formerly Global BPO Services Corp.), which appears in this Form 10-K. 

/s/  BDO Seidman,LLP                        

Boston, MA 

March 10, 2010
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING 

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED 

 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 

 OF FLORIDA 

 SECOND DISTRICT 

COLLIER COUNTY, a political ) 

subdivision of the State of Florida, ) 

 ) 

 Appellant, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2D14-5805 

 ) 

PENNY PHILLIPPI, ) 

 ) 

 Appellee. ) 

 ) 

 

Opinion filed December 9, 2015. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Collier 

County; James R. Shenko, Judge. 

Colleen M. Greene of Collier County 

Attorney's Office, Naples and Gregory N. 

Woods of Woods, Weidenmiller, Michetti & 

Rudnick, P.L., Naples, for Appellant. 

Joseph D. Stewart of Joseph D. Stewart, 

P.A., Naples, for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM. 

We dismiss Collier County's appeal of the circuit court's order granting 

Penny Phillippi entitlement to recover her attorney's fees, because the order reserved 

jurisdiction to determine the amount. See McIlveen v. McIlveen, 644 So. 2d 612, 612 

(Fla. 2d DCA 1994) ("[A]n order which only determines the right to attorney's fees 
- 2 - 

without setting the amount is a nonappealable, nonfinal order."). We affirm on all other 

issues raised in this appeal. See Collier Cty. v. Curry, 166 So. 3d 967 (Fla. 2d DCA 

2015); cf. City of Miami v. Bus Benches Co., 174 So. 2d 49, 52-53 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965) 

("A municipality is bound to recognize its contracts, the same as an individual and one, 

party to a contract with a municipality, is entitled to the constitutional protection against 

impairment of it if the municipality attempts to unilaterally change its obligations under a 

valid agreement." (citations omitted)). 

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part. 

WALLACE, CRENSHAW, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 1 9
- 6847

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. LOKHEIM JERALLE CAMPBELL , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence

. Terry L. Wooten , Senior District Judge. ( 4:09

- cr - 00855

- TLW

- 3; 4:16

- cv - 01951

- TLW )

Submitted : October 31, 2022 Decided: June 15, 2023

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, THACKER , Circuit Judge , and MOTZ, Senior Circuit J udge

.

D ismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Lokheim Jeralle Campbell, Appellant Pro Se. Justin W illiam Holloway, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED ST ATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 19-6847 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/15/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Lokheim Jeralle Campbell seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief

on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.
Dav is , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). 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 constitu tional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Campbell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Campbell’s m otion for appointment of counsel, deny 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 this court and argument would not aid th e decisional process.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 19-6847 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/15/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
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


      In connection with the Quarterly  Report of Arch Management  Services Inc.
(the  "Registrant")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ending May 31, 2006, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
the  undersigned,  James Pak Chiu  Leung,  Principal  Executive  Officer  of the
Registrant,  certifies,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 results of operations
            of the Registrant.



Date:  July 17, 2006                    By: /s/ James Pak Chiu Leung
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Name:  James Pak Chiu Leung
                                            Title: Principal Executive Officer
                                                   and Director
**Exhibit 31.1****Certifications**     I, Jerome J. Smith, Chief Executive Officer of First Business Financial Services, Inc.,certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of First Business Financial Services,Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13(a)-15(c)and 15(d)-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors: a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.     /s/ Jerome J. Smith     Jerome J. Smith
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1998             MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1997             SEP-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1997             NOV-30-1997
<CASH>                                               0                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                       0
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0                       0
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                       0
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0                       0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0                       0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.13)                   (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                   (.07)
        

</TABLE>
1

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER DENYING HTC AMERICA, INC'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

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 DENYING HTC AMERICA, 

INC'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION 

TO SEAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Re: Dkt. No. 1404

On January 24, 2019, third party HTC America, Inc. filed a motion to file under seal 

portions of 3 trial exhibits. ECF No. 1404. Under the Civil Local Rules, a party seeking to seal 

information must file a public redacted version of the documents for which sealing is sought and 

must file the unredacted documents sealed with the portions sought to be sealed highlighted in 

yellow. HTC America has failed to file either a public redacted version or a sealed unredacted 

highlighted version with its motion, so the Court is unable to assess the information HTC America

seeks to seal. Therefore, the Court DENIES HTC America’s motion without prejudice. HTC 

America shall refile its motion to seal by 11:30 a.m. today, January 24, 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1406 Filed 01/24/19 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER DENYING HTC AMERICA, INC'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

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

Dated: January 24, 2019

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1406 Filed 01/24/19 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 31.1  PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION  I, David Oman, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Elite Artz, 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 statement made, in light of the circumstances under which 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 report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.  4. The small business issuer=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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer=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 small business issuer=s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer=s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer=s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer=s internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The small business issuer=s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer=s auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer=s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):   (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 small business issuer=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 small business issuer=s internal control over financial reporting.    Date: October 31, 2006 /s/ David Miles Oman David Miles Oman Principal Executive Officer
Edward GRIFFIN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-4686

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 19, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-1070

ISAAC HOWARD OAKS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JANET RENO, U. S. Attorney General;

JAMES S. GILMORE, III, Attorney General,

Commonwealth of Virginia; DIRECTOR OF

VETERAN’S ADMINISTRATION,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, District

Judge. (CA-97-237-B)

Submitted: July 30, 1998 Decided: August 25, 1998

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Isaac Howard Oaks, Appellant Pro Se. John Francis Corcoran, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia; Donald Renardo

Ferguson, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,

Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order dismissing his

complaint in which he sought a service-connected disability pension. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Oaks v. Reno, No. CA-97-237-B (W.D. Va.

Dec. 15, 1997). 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