alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 12, 2021

No. 04

- 21

- 00257

- CV

Michael SHANNON , Director of Development Services Department, City of San Antonio, Texas; and City of San Antonio, Texas,

Appellants

v.

Arle ne W. BLAIR and Plaintiff Class Petitioners,

Appellees

From the 407th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020

- CI

- 23022 Honorable Mary Lou Alvarez , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

A copy of appellants’ notice of appeal was filed in this court on June 28, 2021. In accordance with section 51.017(a) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, a notice of appeal must be served on each court reporter responsible for preparing the reporter’s record. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.017(a).

The clerk of the court notified the appellants in writing that the certificate of service attached to the notice of appeal filed in this appeal does not certify that any court reporter was served. The clerk instructed the appellants to file an amended notice of appeal certifying proper service on the responsible court reporter(s). An amended notice of appeal has not been filed.

It is therefore ORDERED that Adolfo Ruiz file an amended notice of appeal in compliance with section 51.017(a) within ten days from the date of this order. If appellants fail to file an amended notice of appeal within the time provided, an order may be i ssued directing Mr. Ruiz to appear and show cause why he should not be held in contempt for failing to file the amended notice of appeal. The clerk of this court shall cause a copy of this order to be served on Mr. Ruiz by certified mail, return receipt r equested, or give other personal notice of this order with proof of delivery.

_________________________________ Beth Watkins , JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 12th day of July, 2021

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 6664

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ARANDER MATTHEW HUGHES, JR., a/k/a Randy Hughes , Defendant

- Appellant

.

No. 20
- 6775

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ARANDER MATTHEW HUGHES, JR., a/k/a Randy Hughes , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Asheville

. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. ( 1:98

- cr
- 00155

- MR

- 1 ; 1:16

- cv
00219

- MR )

Submitted : September 22, 2020 Decided: September 2 5 , 20202 Before NIEMEYER , KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Arander Matthew Hughes, Jr. , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Arander Matthew Hughes, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and denying his motion for reconsideration

. The se order s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
ap pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)( B )

. See generally United States v. McRae , 793 F.3d 392, 400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 225 3(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis , 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 constitutional ri ght. 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 Hughes has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appe alability and dismiss the appeal s . 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 the decisional process.
DISMISSED
EXHIBIT
32.1








CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 of
Puramed Bioscience Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30,
2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), the
undersigned certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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:  September 3,
2008





/s/ Russell W.
Mitchell


Russell W. Mitchell


Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer








Dated:  September 3,
2008





/s/ James W.
Higgins


James W. Higgins


Chief Financial and Operating
Officer
Ruben Dario Garzon LONDONO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-10385.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T R E S HA M S I NG H; R AN J I T S I NG H RA N A ; K A M A L PREET K A U R; BA LBI R K A U R, P et i t i o n ers, v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 71652 A ge nc yN os . A 095- 413- 662

A 095- 413- 663 A 095- 413- 664 A 095- 413- 665 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d M ay25, 2010 ** B e f o r e : C A N B Y , T H O M A S , an dW . F L E T C H E R , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . R e s ham S i ngh and hi s f am i l y , na t i ve s and c i t i z e ns of I ndi a , pe t i t i on f

or r e vi e w of

the B oar d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ ( “ B I A ” ) or de rde ny i ng the i rm ot i on t o reopen b as ed on i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l . O ur j uri sdi ct i on i s gov erned 

# FI LED JU N 03 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS07- 71652 2 b y8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e r e v ie w f o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n th e d e n ia l o f am o tio n to r e o p e n . I

tu rr i b a rr i a v . I

NS , 32 1 F . 3d88 9, 89 4 (9th C i r. 20 03 ). W e deny i n p art an dd i s m i s s i n p artth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T h e B I A d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g p e titio n e r s ’ m o tio n to re o p en as u n ti m ely w h er e th e m o ti o n w as filedm o re th an tw o ye ar s a fterth e B IA ’s S ept em ber 17, 20 04 , order di sm i ss i ng pet i t i on er s’ appeal, se e 8 C. F. R. § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( c ) ( 2 ) , an dp e titio n e r s f a ile dto e s tab lis h th e la te f ilin g w a s du e to d e c e p tio n , f

r au do re rr o ro f

f o rm e rc o u n s e l to w arr an t e qu itab le to llin g , se e I tu rr ib a rr ia , 321 F . 3d a t897. W e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w the B I A ’ s de c i s i on nott o i nvoke i t s s ua s p o n te au th o r ityto r e o p e n p r o c e e d in g s . Se e Eki m i a n v . I NS , 303 F . 3d 1153, 1159 (9th C i r. 20 02 ). P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D E N IE D i n p art; D IS M IS S E D i n p art .
Lokesh VUYYURU, et al., petitioners, v. Gopinath JADHAV, et al.

No. 12-1277.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
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 Quarterly Report of Cass Information Systems, Inc. ("the
Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, P.
Stephen Appelbaum, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.


                                    /s/ P. Stephen Appelbaum
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    P. Stephen Appelbaum
                                    Chief Financial Officer
                                    (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
                                    November 5, 2009

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Cass Information Systems, Inc. and will be retained by Cass
Information Systems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
Steven WEATHERSBY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-7026.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 18, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Terry L. McILVOY, petitioner, v. Jeff NORMAN, Superintendent, Jefferson City Correctional Center.

No. 12-9103.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Derrell GAULDEN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9001.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Woodrow FLEMMING, petitioner, v. Debbie KEMP, et al.

No. 13-6645.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 18, 2013.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule *67533.1. See *Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals,*506 U.S. 1, 113 S.Ct. 397, 121 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992) (*per curiam* ).
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.170

                                 PROMISSORY NOTE

$5,000,000.00                                               Milpitas, California
                                                                   June 23, 1999

      The undersigned, Michael R. Cannon ("Borrower"), hereby unconditionally
promises to pay to the order of Maxtor Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the
"Lender"), the sum of Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00) plus interest, in
accordance with the terms of the Executive Retention Agreement by and between
Lender and Borrower effective June 23, 1999 (the "June 1999 Retention
Agreement").

      The outstanding principal balance of this Note, together with all accrued
and unpaid interest hereon, shall be due and payable on June 22, 2002, or upon
termination for "Cause" or voluntary termination of employment for reasons other
than "Good Reason" as those terms are defined in the June 1999 Retention
Agreement. Interest shall accrue on unpaid principal from the date hereof until
maturity at a rate of 4.98%, compounded annually.

      This Note may be prepaid, in whole or in part, at any time or from time to
time, without penalty or premium. Any prepayment of principal must be
accompanied by then accrued but unpaid interest. Interest shall cease to accrue
on amounts of principal so prepaid. Any prepayment of interest shall include all
interest accrued to the date of payment, but need not include any payment of
principal.

      All payments of principal or interest shall be made in lawful money of the
United States of America to the Lender at the offices of the Lender, or at such
other address as the Lender shall specify to Borrower in writing. Any payment
shall be deemed made upon receipt by Lender.

      Upon payment in full of all principal and interest payable hereunder, this
Note shall be surrendered to Borrower for cancellation.

      Borrower waives its rights to impose any defense (other than payment),
set-off, counterclaim or cross-claim in any action brought on this Note.
Borrower waives presentment, demand for performance, notice of performance,
protest, notice of protest, and notice of dishonor.


                                       1
<PAGE>   2
      If the indebtedness represented by this Note or any part hereof is
collected at law or in equity or in bankruptcy, receivership or other judicial
proceedings, or if this Note is placed in the hands of attorneys for collection
after default, Borrower agrees to pay, in addition to the principal and interest
payable hereon, reasonable attorneys' and collection fees and costs.

      This Note is being delivered in and shall be construed in accordance with
the laws of the State of California.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Borrower has executed this Note as of the day and year
first above written.

                                              /s/ Michael R. Cannon
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Michael R. Cannon


                                       2
Roger Charles DAY, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-1155.

Supreme Court of the United States

July 22, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Alexander Jesus MARTINEZ, petitioner, v. Michael D. CREWS, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

No. 12-9769.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:13-CR-81

)

BRYANT DAVIS )

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY

TO: THE HONORABLE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, JUDGE, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules

of Criminal Procedure, this matter came on for hearing before U.S. Magistrate Roger B. Cosbey,

on March 20, 2014, with the written consents of the defendant, counsel for the defendant, and

counsel for the United States of America.

The hearing on defendant’s plea of guilty was in full compliance with Rule 11, Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, before the Magistrate Judge in open court and on the record.

In consideration of that hearing and the statements made by the defendant under oath on

the record and in the presence of counsel, the remarks of the Assistant United States Attorney and

of counsel for defendant,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that defendant understands the nature of the charge against him to which the plea is

offered;

(2) that the defendant understands his right to trial by jury, to persist in his plea of not

guilty, to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and
his right against compelled self-incrimination;

(3) that the defendant understands what the maximum possible sentence is, including the

effect of the supervised release term, and defendant understands that the Sentencing Guidelines

apply and that the Court may depart from those guidelines under some circumstances;

(4) that the plea of guilty by the defendant has been knowingly and voluntarily made and

is not the result of force or threats or of promises apart from the plea agreement between the

parties;

(5) that defendant is competent to plead guilty;

(6) that the defendant understands that his answers may later be used against him in a

prosecution for perjury or false statement;

(7) that there is a factual basis for the defendant’s plea; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept the defendant’s plea of guilty and that the

Defendant be adjudged guilty of the offense charged in the single-count Indictment, and have

sentence imposed. A Presentence Report has been ordered. Should this Report and

Recommendation be accepted and the Defendant adjudged guilty, sentencing will be scheduled

before Judge Theresa L. Springmann by separate order and notice. Objections to the Findings

and Recommendation are waived unless filed and served within fourteen (14) days. 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B).

DATED this 20th day of March, 2014.

/s/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey

United States Magistrate Judge

2
Skip to main content
          Skip to FDA Search
          Skip to in this section menu
          Skip to footer links


U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government

					Here’s how you know
          			Dot gov**The .gov means it’s official.**Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.
							      SSL**The site is secure.** The **https://** ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely. 
			U.S. Food and Drug Administration
				
        Search
            Menu
							
						Search FDA
									
									Submit search 
		Featured
							Contact FDA
	                FDA Guidance Documents
	                Recalls, Market Withdrawals and Safety Alerts
	                Press Announcements
	                Warning Letters
	                Advisory Committees
	                En Español

					Products
            Food
							Drugs
							Medical Devices
							Radiation-Emitting Products
							Vaccines, Blood, and Biologics
							Animal and Veterinary
							Cosmetics
							Tobacco ProductsTopics
            About FDA
							Combination Products
							Regulatory Information
							Safety
							Emergency Preparedness
							International Programs
							News and Events
							Training and Continuing Education
							Inspections and Compliance
							Science and ResearchInformation For
            Consumers
	            Patients
	            Industry
	            Health Professionals
	            Federal, State and Local Officials 
 In this section:

        Radiation-Emitting Products and Procedures

Surgical and Therapeutic Products Home
          Radiation-Emitting Products
          Radiation-Emitting Products and Procedures
          Surgical and Therapeutic ProductsRadiation-Emitting Products and Procedures Surgical and Therapeutic Products
  	
        Share
    Post
    Linkedin

    Email
    PrintMedical Lasers
	Medical Ultraviolet Lamps and Products
	Radiofrequency and Microwave Products Other than Microwave Ovens (including Microwave Diathermy and Microwave Blood Warmers)
	Ultrasound Products Other than Diagnostic

                                                                                  Content current as of:
      02/21/2023
                  
                   
Regulated Product(s)
		 Radiation-Emitting ProductsSurgical and Therapeutic Products
 
 Footer Links
    FDA Archive
          About FDA
          Accessibility
      Visitor Information
          Website Policies / Privacy
          No FEAR Act
          Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
      FOIA
          HHS.gov
          USA.gov
    Contact FDA
      Follow FDA on Facebook
      Follow FDA on X
      Follow FDA on Instagram
      Follow FDA on LinkedIn
      View FDA videos on YouTube
      Subscribe to FDA RSS feeds
    FDA Homepage
    Contact Number
      1-888-INFO-FDA (1-888-463-6332) Back toTop
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

JONATHAN FERGUSON, ) 

Plaintiff, )

)

 v. ) CASE NUMBER: 3:13CV417-JVB-JEM

)

CITY OF SOUTH BEND, ET AL., )

Defendant )

MOTION TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE

Counsel for the Defendant, states the following in support of his motion:

1. On June 15, 2015, I will start my new position with the St. Joseph County Courts

as Magistrate and therefore I am closing my private practice.

2. On May 26, 2015 new counsel for the defendant entered their appearance.

WHEREFORE, counsel respectfully requests that his appearance be withdrawn.

/s/Jeffrey L. Sanford 

Jeffrey L. Sanford 14111-71

Attorney for Defendant

212 S. Taylor St.

South Bend, Indiana 46601

 (574) 233-7280

(574) 234-8411 facsimile

jlsattlaw@aol.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on May 26, 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk

of the Court using the CM/ECF system which sent notification of such filing.

 /s/Jeffrey L. Sanford 

USDC IN/ND case 3:13-cv-00417-JVB-JEM document 29 filed 05/27/15 page 1 of 2
USDC IN/ND case 3:13-cv-00417-JVB-JEM document 29 filed 05/27/15 page 2 of 2
Brandon Gene RUSHING, petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 12-9809.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas denied.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-147347) pertaining to the Abraxis BioScience, Inc. 2007 Stock Incentive Plan, the American BioScience, Inc. Restricted Stock Unit Plan I and the American BioScience, Inc. Restricted Stock Unit Plan II of ourreport dated March 31, 2008, with respect to the consolidated and combined financial statements of Abraxis BioScience, Inc. (formerly known as New Abraxis, Inc.) included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2007.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

Chicago, Illinois 

March 31, 2008
Joseph Felix DeHERRERA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9308.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.