alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

RUTHERFORD CONTROLS INT’L CORP., a Canadian Corporation and RUTHERFORD CONTROLS INT’L CORP., a Virginia Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

VANGUARD SECURITY ENGINEERING CORP., LTD., Defendant,

and

SECURITY DOOR CONTROLS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

2010-1113

______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in No. 08-CV-0369, Judge Henry E. Hudson.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

W ILLIAM C. B ERGMANN , Baker & Hostetler LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. With
him on the brief were M ARK H. T IDMAN and A. N EAL S ETH

.

S TEPHEN E. N OONA , Kaufman & Canoles, P.C., of Norfolk, Virginia, argued for defendant-appellee. Of
counsel on the brief was J AYE G. H EYBL , Koppel, Patrick, Heybl & Dawson, of Westlake Village, California.

______________________T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (P ROST

, M AYER , and S CHALL

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

July 14, 2010 /s/ Jan Horbaly

Date Jan Horbaly
Clerk
Exhibit 32.2
   1.
    
    Dionex Corporations Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, to
which this Certification is attached (the Periodic Report), fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 2.
    
    The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Dionex Corporation.
 By:
    /s/ Craig A. McCollamName:
    Craig A. McCollamTitle:
    Executive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerDate:
    May 10, 2010
Robert WILLIAMS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9954.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2013.

*2754Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: San Jacinto River Authority v. Michael A. Burney, et al.

Appellate case number: 01-18-00365-CV

Trial court case number: 2018-10744

Trial court: 157th District Court of Harris County

Appellate case name: San Jacinto River Authority v. Charles J. Argento, et al.

Appellate case number: 01-18-00406-CV

Trial court case number: 2018-10787

Trial court: 151st District Court of Harris County

Appellate case name: San Jacinto River Authority v. Vicente Medina, et al.

Appellate case number: 01-18-00407-CV

Trial court case number: 2018-10478

Trial court: 151st District Court of Harris County

In these three appeals, appellant has asserted in its first issue that the district courts lacked 

subject-matter jurisdiction over the appellees’ inverse-condemnation claims because, under 

Government Code subsection 25.1032(c), the county civil courts at law of Harris County have 

exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction over inverse-condemnation claims.

Appellees have also pleaded statutory-takings claims under Government Code subsection 

2007.021(a), which provides in pertinent part: “A suit under this subchapter must be filed in a 

district court in the county in which the private real property owner's affected property is 

located.” 

The court requests supplemental briefs from the parties on appellant’s first issue. The 

supplemental briefs should address, at a minimum, subsection 2007.021(a), this court’s decision 

in City of Houston v. Guthrie, 332 S.W.3d 578, 592–93 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, 

pet. denied), and the effect, if any, of subsection 25.1032(c) on the subject-matter jurisdiction of 

appellees’ statutory-takings claims under subsection 2007.021(a). The supplemental briefs shall 

be filed no later than 1:30 p.m. on October 12, 2018.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Michael Massengale 

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: October 5, 2018
In the Matter of Disbarment of Charles R. LAURIE, Jr.

No. D-2702.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2013.

Disbarment order entered.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: SESSIONS OF THE SUPREME 

COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

FOR THE YEAR 2018

:

:

:

No. 474

Judicial Administration 

Docket

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 21st day of December, 2016 it is ordered that the 

argument/administrative sessions of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania shall be held in 

the year 2018 as follows:

Philadelphia February 6

th

 (Administrative Session)

 

Philadelphia March 5

th through March 9th

Harrisburg March 27

th

(Administrative Session)

Pittsburgh April 9

th through April 13th

Harrisburg May 14th through May 18

th

Pittsburgh June 5

th

(Administrative Session)

Philadelphia September 24th through September 28th

Pittsburgh October 22nd through October 26th

Harrisburg December 3rd through the 7th

Additional argument/administrative sessions may be scheduled as the Court 

deems necessary.
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

STATE OF TEXAS

PENALTY FOR . .:

12/12/2014 pWVATE USE K

TOBIN, TIMOTHY Tr. Ct.*No. D?l?DC^f

1US

o ,. o

2 *-*# * &5^&£TAL*£i¥&'i3&tvren

02 1M

0004279596

' PITNEV BOWES

$ 00.26s

DEC18 2014

RAILED FROM ^r0855861o1

On this day, the application forr11 07 Writ of Habeas Corpus has been, received

and presented to the Court. x _^- . - "*'•"' Abel Acosta, Clerk

'N3B 7S617

TIMOTHY TOBIN

TRAVIS CO. CORR. CEN.

3614 BILL PRICE RD.

DELVALLE, TX 78617

TDC #1434635

UTF

hlMlHlui''lllllllilMllllIMHl'l,'lMMlhnl'Ml,lNl'IT
In re Todd James LUH, petitioner.

No. 12-9489.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2013.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6388
WILLIAM D. MARSHALL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DOUGLAS C. DEVENYNS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-3922-L) Submitted: May 28, 2003 Decided: July 9, 2003 Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William D. Marshall, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: William D. Marshall seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief without prejudice on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2241 proceeding 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Marshall has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 15 (b)








Texas Utilities Electric Company:

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited condensed
consolidated interim financial information of Texas Utilities Electric Company
and  subsidiaries  ("TU Electric")  for  the  periods  ended  March 31, 1998
and 1997, as indicated in our report dated May 11, 1998; because we did not
perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

We  are  aware  that  our  report  referred  to  above,  which is included in
TU Electric's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q  for  the  quarter  ended  March
31,  1998,  is  incorporated by reference in Registration Statements No.
33-69554 and 333-42985 on Form S-3, and Registration Statement No. 333-83976
on Post Effective Amendment No. 1 to Form S-3, of Texas Utilities Electric
Company.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c)
under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that
Act.



DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Dallas, Texas
May 11, 1998
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

DANIEL ANTHONY MCDADE,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-00763-JCS 

ORDER SEALING DOCUMENT FOR 

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RULE 

5.2(a)

Re: Dkt. No. 31

Plaintiff Daniel McDade filed as docket entry 31 a “fee waiver questionnaire” containing 

in response to question 18 the names of his two minor daughters. Pursuant to Rule 5.2(a) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, public filings in federal court proceedings may identify minors 

only by their initials. Docket entry 31 is therefore SEALED. To complete the public record, 

McDade is ORDERED to file a redacted version of the questionnaire that complies with Rule 

5.2(a) no later than December 3, 2018.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 26, 2018

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge
睡眠障害

FDA婦人健康部

www.fda.gov/womens

睡眠についての基本的な事実

成人は普通、毎晩7〜8時間の睡眠が必要です。

しかし、誰もが必要な睡眠がとれているわけで

はありません。

たまに以下の理由で、よく眠れなくなることが

あります:

• ストレス

• 健康上の問題と、薬

• 長時間労働/勤務シフト

• 光、または騒音

• お酒、または就寝時間間際の食事

寝つきが悪かったり、朝までに何度も目が覚め

たりする場合は、「不眠症」と呼ばれる睡眠障

害なのかもしれません。

人によっては、もっと深刻な睡眠障害を抱えてい

ることもあります。以下の症状が出る場合は、

医師に相談してください:

• 日中に眠ってしまう

• 睡眠中にいびきをかくか、苦しそうに息をする

• 寝ている最中に足に妙な感覚がある、または足

を動かさないといけないように感じる

睡眠を助ける薬

あなたの寝付きを良くしたり、ぐっすりと眠れる

ようにする薬が、あるかもしれません。睡眠薬の

種類によっては、医師の処方箋が必要です。処方

箋無しで購入できる市販(OTC)薬もあります。

処方箋の必要な睡眠薬

処方睡眠薬は多くの人に効果がありますが、同

時に、深刻な副作用を引き起こす可能性もあり

ます。

• 処方された睡眠薬を服用する際の全てのリスク

と利点について、医師に相談して情報を得てく

ださい。

• 不眠症を治すための睡眠薬は、服用した翌日の

朝の運転に影響を与える可能性があります。

• 睡眠薬は、稀に以下のような副作用を引き起こ

すことがあります:

- 重度のアレルギー反応

- 顔にひどいむくみ

- 完全に睡眠から覚めていない状態で電話をか

けたり、食事をしたり、セックスしたり、運

転したりするような行動

市販薬 (OTC)

市販の睡眠薬にも、副作用があります。	市販睡

眠薬の副作用を詳しく知りたい場合は、薬のラ

ベルに書いてある「Drug	Facts」をお読みくだ

さい。	
 	このファクトシートは、FDA婦人保健部によって作成されました。

女性の健康に関する他の情報が欲しい方は、以下のURLにアクセスしてください。

www.fda.gov/womens

2021

睡眠障害

良い睡眠をとるためのヒント

夜の習慣をいくつか変えると、必要な睡眠がとれるようになるかもしれません。

• 毎日同じ時間に就寝し、起床する。

• 暗くて静かな部屋で、寝る。

• カフェインやニコチンを、避ける。

• 就寝前にアルコールを飲まない。

• 就寝前にリラックスできるようなことを、何かする。

• 就寝前に運動しない。

• 午後3時以降は、昼寝をしない。

• 寝る前に大量の食事をとらない。

2週間以上、ほぼ毎晩睡眠がうまくとれない場合は、医師に相談してく

ださい。

睡眠障害 (JAPANESE)
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of CEO and CFO

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 on Form 10-Q of National Property Investors 6 (the "Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Martha L. Long, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of the Partnership, each hereby certifies, 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 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 Partnership.





| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/Martha L. Long      
| | Name: Martha L. Long   
| | Date: August 13, 2008  
| |                        
| | /s/Stephen B. Waters   
| | Name: Stephen B. Waters
| | Date: August 13, 2008  





This certification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 563 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 563

   Honoring the life and legacy of Charles Isham Taylor on the 100th 
                      anniversary of his passing.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 29, 2022

Mr. Braun (for himself, Mr. Ossoff, Mr. Graham, Mr. Warnock, Mr. Scott 
 of South Carolina, and Mr. Young) submitted the following resolution; 
                   which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Honoring the life and legacy of Charles Isham Taylor on the 100th 
                      anniversary of his passing.

Whereas Charles Isham Taylor (referred to in this preamble as ``Taylor'') was 
        born on January 20, 1875, in Anderson, South Carolina;
Whereas Taylor joined the United States Army and served as a private with the 
        Buffalo Soldiers of the Tenth Calvary Regiment during the Spanish-
        American War;
Whereas, in 1899, Taylor enrolled at Clark College in Atlanta, Georgia, where he 
        joined the Clark College baseball team as the starting third baseman;
Whereas, in 1904, Taylor started the first Black professional baseball team in 
        Birmingham, Alabama, the Birmingham Giants;
Whereas Taylor moved to Indiana in time for him to assume the leadership of the 
        West Baden Sprudels for the 1910 season;
Whereas, in 1914, Taylor became an owner and team manager of the Indianapolis 
        ABCs, along with Thomas Bowser;
Whereas, under the leadership of Taylor, the West Baden Sprudels and the 
        Indianapolis ABCs had notable success against several Major-Minor League 
        all-star teams;
Whereas Taylor was also co-founder and vice president of the Negro National 
        League;
Whereas Taylor passed away on February 23, 1922, in Indianapolis, Indiana, at 
        the age of 47; and
Whereas the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum awards the C.I. Taylor Legacy Award to 
        the best manager of each Major League Baseball league: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--
            (1) Charles Isham Taylor was a pioneer who was dedicated to 
        providing African Americans the same opportunities to compete 
        in the sport of baseball as white individuals, especially in 
        the State of Indiana;
            (2) Charles Isham Taylor made significant contributions to 
        the sport of baseball and the city of Indianapolis; and
            (3) on the 100th anniversary of his passing, Charles Isham 
        Taylor should be commemorated and remembered for the impact and 
        significance his life had on providing opportunities for 
        African Americans in the State of Indiana.
                                 <all>
```
Amendment No. 1 to Capital Support Agreement



 EXHIBIT 10.5 
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO 
 CAPITAL SUPPORT AGREEMENT 
 This Amendment No. 1 (the “Amendment”) to the Capital Support Agreement, is made as
of the 26th day of January 2009, by and between Northern Trust Corporation (the “Support Provider”) and The Northern Trust Company
(“TNT”), as trustee on behalf of The Northern Trust Company Common Short Term Investment Fund (the “Fund”). 
 WHEREAS,
the parties have entered into a Capital Support Agreement (the “Agreement”), dated as of September 29, 2008; and 
 WHEREAS,
the parties desire to amend the Agreement on the terms and subject to the conditions provided herein. 
 NOW THEREFORE, the parties,
intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows: 
 1. Unless otherwise expressly provided herein, capitalized terms shall have the
meanings assigned to them in the Agreement. 
 2. Section 3(c)(iii) of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced as
set forth below: 
 (iii) 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on November 6, 2009, or such later date as agreed upon by the Support Provider and TNT.








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties caused this Amendment No. 1 to the Capital Support Agreement to be
executed. 
  

			
	NORTHERN TRUST CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 /s/ William R. Dodds, Jr.

	Name:	 	William R. Dodds, Jr.
	Title:	 	Treasurer
	
	ADDRESS FOR NOTICES:
	 50 S. LaSalle St.
 Chicago, IL
60603
 Attn: William R. Dodds, Jr.



	
	THE NORTHERN TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE OF THE NORTHERN TRUST COMPANY COMMON SHORT TERM INVESTMENT FUND
		
	By:	 	 /s/ John L. Krieg

	Name:	 	John L. Krieg
	Title:	 	Senior Vice President
	
	ADDRESS FOR NOTICES:
	 50 S. LaSalle St.
 Chicago, IL
60603
 Attn: John L. Krieg
Opinion issued February 12, 2015 .

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 14 - 00818 - CV

——————————— SAAD S. SKARYA , Appellant

V. ESTRELLA ROSA , Appellee

On Appeal from the 387th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 13 - DCV - 211578

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Saad S. Skarya , has neither paid the required fees nor established indigence for purposes of appellate costs. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 5, 20.1; see also T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . §§ 51.207, 51.941(a), 101.041 (West 2013), 101.04112

(West Supp. 2014); Order Regarding Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil Cases in the Courts of Appeals, and before the Judicial Panel on Mult i

- district Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 13

- 9127 (Tex. Aug. 16, 2013). Further, appellant has not paid or made arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the clerk’s record. See T EX . R. A PP . P . 37.3(b). After being notified that this appeal was subject to di smissal, appellant did not adequately respond. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 5, 42.3(b), (c). We dismiss the appeal for nonpayment of all required fees. We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Brown a nd Lloyd.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

226 CAF 10-01316
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, LINDLEY, GREEN, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF DEBORAH L. PALADINO, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

FRANK P. PALADINO, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

STEVEN C. BUITRON, SYRACUSE, FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

ELISABETH A. BARKER, SYRACUSE, FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Onondaga County (Michael L. Hanuszczak, J.), entered April 6, 2010 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4. The order granted respondent’s objection to the order of the Support Magistrate dated January 25, 2010.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Family Court properly granted respondent father’s objection to the order of the Support Magistrate granting the petition seeking to modify a prior order of child support. The father objected to the order insofar as it directed the Support Collection Unit to recompute the father’s child support arrears by adding back in the amount for which the father was credited between the date that the parties’ daughter began living with petitioner mother and the date the petition was filed. As the court properly concluded, it “was only empowered to make its modification of the prior support order retroactive to the date of the filing of the . . . petition” ( Matter of Aiken v Aiken , 115 AD2d 919, 920; see Family Ct Act § 449 [2]). Further, “Family Court is a court of limited jurisdiction that cannot exercise powers beyond those granted to it by statute” ( Matter of Johna M.S. v Russell E.S. , 10 NY3d 364, 366) or the State Constitution ( see NY Const, art VI, § 13). The court therefore had no general equity jurisdiction and lacked authority to grant retroactive relief to the mother based upon equitable principles ( see generally Matter of Brescia v Fitts , 56 NY2d 132, 139).

Entered: February 18, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
---

Exhibit 99.7

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Alexander Black,  Chief Executive Officer of Rio Alto Mining Limited (the “Company”),  hereby 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: a.

   the Annual Report on Form 40-F of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 (the “Annual Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; andb.

   the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  Date: March 16, 2015 By: /s/ “Alexander Black”Name: Alexander Black
Title: Chief Executive Officer  This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Company's Annual Report on Form 40-F. A signed original of this statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form 40-F pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.


---
#### Johnathan Lee X SMITH, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES; Mary Tarnowski; O. Odunsi; Willinda Purdie; T.D. Hatchett; Brenda Wolford; R. Reed; A. Wilson; Linda W. Mitchell; Jane Doe; C. Davis, Warden, K. Hamlin; Vincent M. Gore; Paul Ohai; Linda B. Nhambure; Earline Hill, V. Applewhite; William Henceroth; David Barnes; Powhatan Reception & Classification Center; Fred Schilling, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 03-7881.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 29, 2004.

Decided May 4, 2004.

Johnathan Lee X Smith, Appellant pro se.

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

*868Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

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

PER CURIAM:

Johnathan Lee X Smith appeals from the district court’s orders dismissing without prejudice his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000), for failure to pay the filing fee, and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Smith v. Cow. Med. Servs.,*No. CA-03-665 (E.D. Va. Oct. 20, 2003 & Nov. 17, 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.

*DISMISSED*