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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7658

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

ABDULLAH RASOOL SHAKOOR, a/k/a Lee McDonald, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (7:97-cr-00064-BO-1; 7:14-cv-00130-BO) 

Submitted: August 4, 2015 Decided: August 20, 2015

Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Abdullah Rasool Shakoor, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. 

May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Abdullah Rasool Shakoor appeals the district court’s order 

denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) motion, which sought 

vacatur of the court’s April 23, 2008 order construing his March 

2007 letter as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. 

Although we typically review the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion 

for abuse of discretion, MLC Auto., LLC v. Town of S. Pines, 532 

F.3d 269, 277 (4th Cir. 2008), where a motion seeks vacatur 

under Rule 60(b)(4), our review is de novo. Carter v. Fenner, 

136 F.3d 1000, 1005 (5th Cir. 1998); see Compton v. Alton S.S. 

Co., Inc., 608 F.2d 96, 107 (4th Cir. 1979) (stating that 

motions “under [Rule] 60(b) on any ground other than that the 

judgment is void” are reviewed for abuse of discretion). In 

ruling on an appeal from the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion, we 

may not review the merits of the underlying order, but instead 

“may only review the denial of the motion with respect to the 

grounds set forth in Rule 60(b).” MLC Auto., LLC, 532 F.3d at 

277 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the district 

court did not reversibly err in denying the Rule 60(b)(4) motion 

because none of the criteria for granting the motion was met in 

this case. See Wendt v. Leonard, 431 F.3d 410, 412-13 (4th Cir. 

2005). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 

United States v. Shakoor, No. 7:97-cr-00064-BO-1 (E.D.N.C. 
3

Oct. 24, 2014). 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. 

AFFIRMED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

SOUTH BEND DIVISION 

ANDREW U.D. STRAW, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

THOMAS M. DIXON, et al., 

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

Case No. 3:14-CV-1772 JD 

ORDER

On January 4, 2016, this Court notified Plaintiff Andrew U.D. Straw that, unless he 

informed the Court otherwise, it intended to construe his December 1, 2015 filing as a notice of 

voluntary dismissal. [DE 58]. Mr. Straw has not responded to that notice, and the deadline has 

now passed. Accordingly, the Court hereby construes Mr. Straw’s filing [DE 56] as a notice of 

voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and 

ORDERS that this case is dismissed without prejudice. 

 SO ORDERED. 

 ENTERED: January 20, 2016 

 /s/ JON E. DEGUILIO 

 Judge 

 United States District Court 

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-01772-JD-CAN document 59 filed 01/20/16 page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.§ 1350,
as adopted), Dr. Paramesh Gopi, Chief Executive Officer of Applied Micro Circuits Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



|1. | This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act).
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Report
to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act (whether made before or after the date of the Report),
irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.



/S/ PARAMESH GOPIDr. Paramesh Gopi President and Chief
Executive Officer


Dated: September 4, 2009
Kelvin SETTLE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9693.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

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

Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
----

----

|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | (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 23, 2008 | By:    | /s/ James      H. Watson, Jr.                                   |   |
|                          |   | James      H. Watson, Jr.Treasurer(Principal      Financial Officer) |   |
|                          |   |                                                                 |   |
|                          |   |                                                                 |   |

 

----

----
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 92 (Friday, May 12, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Pages 25768-25769]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11844]



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

LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS


Provision for the Delivery of Legal Services; Committee Meeting; 
Changes

CITATION OF PREVIOUS ``FEDERAL REGISTER'' NOTICE: 60 FR 22437-22439.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE: May 12, 1995 at 1:00 p.m.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED LOCATION OF MEETING: Legal Services Corporation, 
750 1st Street, N.E., Board Room, Washington, D.C. 20002, (202) 336-
8800.

CHANGES IN THE MEETING: 

STATUS OF MEETING: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: A new item number ``3'' has been added 
regarding the approval of minutes of a joint meeting. The amended 
agenda is presented below.

OPEN SESSION: 

    1. Approval of Agenda.
    2. Approval of Minutes of March 17, 1995 Meeting.
    3. Approval of Minutes of March 17, 1995 Meeting.
    4. Report on the Veterans Grant Initiative.
    5. Consider and Act on Proposal to Transfer Local Program Audit 
Review Function to the Inspector General.
    6. Consider and Act on Other Business.

CONTACT PERSON FOR INFORMATION: Patricia Batie (202) 336-8800.
    Upon request, meeting notices will be made available in alternate 
formats to accommodate visual and hearing impairments.
    Individuals who have a disability and need an accommodation to 
attend the meeting may notify Patricia Batie at (202) 336-8800.

    [[Page 25769]] Date Issued: May 5, 1995.
Patricia D. Batie,
Corporate Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-11844 Filed 5-10-95; 9:31 am]
BILLING CODE 7050-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1,000
<CASH>                                             980
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,799
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      8,497
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,058
<PP&E>                                           5,325
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,511
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  18,260
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,988
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,125
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,147
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    18,260
<SALES>                                          4,197
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                            2,257
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,779
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    178
<INCOME-TAX>                                        71
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       107
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION AT LAFAYETTE

DUSTIN PIERPONT, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CAUSE NO. 4:15-CV-036

)

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Petition under 28

U.S.C. Paragraph 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Dustin

Pierpont on April 22, 2015. Pierpont is challenging the prison

disciplinary hearing that was held at the Miami Correctional

Facility on January 14, 2015, under case number MCF 15-01-045 where

the Disciplinary Hearing Body (DHB) found him guilty of Possession

or Use of a Controlled Substance in violation of B-202 and demoted

him to Credit Class 2. 

Pierpont argues that despite his positive drug test results

(which he does not contest), the finding of guilt should be

overturned because of two violations of the Offender Urinalysis

Program Manual of Policies and Procedures. However, the violation

of a prison rule is not a basis for habeas corpus relief. Estelle

v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 68 (1991) (“In conducting habeas review,

a federal court is limited to deciding whether a conviction

violated the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United
States.”). Therefore, even if the policies in the manual were not

followed, that would not be a basis for overturning the finding

that Pierpont is guilty. 

For the reasons set forth above, the habeas corpus petition is

DENIED pursuant to Habeas Corpus Rule 4. 

DATED: April 27, 2015 /s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge

United State District Court

2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 3:15-CR-1 RLM 

)

TYREN LEEKS )

ORDER

No objections have been filed to the magistrate judge’s findings and

recommendations upon a plea of guilty entered on February 11, 2015.

Accordingly, the court ADOPTS those findings and recommendations [docket #

13], ACCEPTS defendant Tyren Leeks’ plea of guilty, and FINDS the defendant

guilty of Count 1 of the Information, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 287. 

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: March 5, 2015 

 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

Judge, United States District Court

Northern District of Indiana
**EXHIBIT 15**

**LETTER FROM INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM REGARDING UNAUDITED INTERIM FINANCIAL INFORMATION**

**LETTER IN LIEU OFCONSENT FOR REVIEW REPORT**

October 23, 2007 

BoeingCapital Corporation 

500 Naches Avenue SW, 3rd Floor 

Renton, Washington 

We have reviewed, inaccordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the unaudited interim financial information of Boeing Capital Corporation and subsidiaries for the periods ended September 30, 2007 and 2006, asindicated in our report dated October 23, 2007; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information. 

We are awarethat our report referred to above, which is included in your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, is incorporated by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-55846 and 333-83208 on Form S-3.

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 theRegistration 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. 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP 

Seattle, Washington 

 

19
Franco BADINI, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-6935.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Chazre DAVIS, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 13-6679.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 9, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, denied.
### THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECED ENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVID ED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court The State, Respondent,

v. Wayland Purnell, Petitioner. Appellate Case No. 2017-001920

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT O F APPEALS

Appeal from Richland County Clifton Newman, Circuit Court Judge
Opinion No. 2019-MO-032 Heard January 31, 2019 – Filed July 24, 2019

CERTIORARI DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED
Appellate Defender Lara M . Caudy, of Columbia, for Petitioner. Attorney General Alan Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Vann Henry Gunter , Jr. and Interim Solicitor Heather S. Weiss, all of C olumbia, for Respondent.PER CURIAM: We granted Wayland Purnell's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals' decision in State v. Purnell , Op. No. 2017-UP-272 (S.C. Ct. App. filed July 5, 2017). We now dismiss the writ as impro vidently granted.
DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED. BEATTY, C.J., HEARN, FEW and JAMES, JJ., and Acting Justice Pau l E. Short, concur.
Kofi KYEI, petitioner, v. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, et al.

No. 12-10396.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Aaron GREENSPAN, petitioner, v. RANDOM HOUSE, INC., et al.

No. 12-965.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

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

Justice BREYER took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
27204 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 1995 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention

Meeting of the Coordinating Council

on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention

May 11, 1995.

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A meeting

of the Coordinating Council on Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention will

take place in the District of Columbia,

beginning at 1:00 p.m. on Wednesday,

June 21, 1995, and ending at 4:00 p.m.

on June 21, 1995. This advisory

committee, chartered as the

Coordinating Council on Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention,

will meet at the United States

Department of Justice, located at 10th

and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Conference Room 5111, Washington,

D.C. 20530. The Coordinating Council,

established pursuant to section 3(2)(A)

of the Federal Advisory Committee Act

(5 U.S.C. App. 2), will meet to carry out

its advisory functions under section 206

of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention Act of 1974, as amended.

This meeting will be open to the public.

The public is advised that it must enter

the building via the Constitution

Avenue Visitors’ Center. For security

reasons, members of the public who are

attending the meeting must contact the

Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) by

close of business June 14, 1995. The

point of contact at OJJDP is Lutricia Key

who can be reached at (202) 307–5911.

The public is further advised that a

pictured identification is required to

enter the building.

Shay Bilchik,

Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention.

[FR Doc. 95–12409 Filed 5–19–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–18–P
EXHIBIT 12



Boeing Capital Corporation and Subsidiaries
Computation of Ratio of Income to Fixed Charges
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Nine months ended
                                                                                      September 30,
(Dollars in millions)                                                             2002              2001
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income:
   <S>                                                                     <C>               <C>
   Income before provision (benefit) for income taxes                      $         45.6    $        167.5
   Fixed charges                                                                    299.5             237.4
                                                                           ------------------------------------
   Income before provision (benefit) for income taxes and fixed
      charges                                                              $        345.1    $        404.9
                                                                           ====================================

Fixed charges:
    Interest expense                                                       $        297.0    $        233.3
    Preferred stock dividend requirement(1)                                           2.5               4.1
                                                                           ------------------------------------
                                                                           $        299.5    $        237.4
                                                                           ====================================

Ratio of income before provision (benefit) for income taxes and
fixed charges to fixed charges                                                     1.15              1.71
                                                                           ====================================

     (1) Reflects a pre-tax basis.

</TABLE>
case 2:14-cv-00160-JTM-PRC document 1 filed 05/09/14 page 1 of 17
case 2:14-cv-00160-JTM-PRC document 1 filed 05/09/14 page 2 of 17
case 2:14-cv-00160-JTM-PRC document 1 filed 05/09/14 page 3 of 17
case 2:14-cv-00160-JTM-PRC document 1 filed 05/09/14 page 4 of 17
case 2:14-cv-00160-JTM-PRC document 1 filed 05/09/14 page 5 of 17
case 2:14-cv-00160-JTM-PRC document 1 filed 05/09/14 page 6 of 17
case 2:14-cv-00160-JTM-PRC document 1 filed 05/09/14 page 7 of 17
case 2:14-cv-00160-JTM-PRC document 1 filed 05/09/14 page 8 of 17
case 2:14-cv-00160-JTM-PRC document 1 filed 05/09/14 page 9 of 17
case 2:14-cv-00160-JTM-PRC document 1 filed 05/09/14 page 10 of 17
case 2:14-cv-00160-JTM-PRC document 1 filed 05/09/14 page 11 of 17
case 2:14-cv-00160-JTM-PRC document 1 filed 05/09/14 page 12 of 17
case 2:14-cv-00160-JTM-PRC document 1 filed 05/09/14 page 13 of 17
case 2:14-cv-00160-JTM-PRC document 1 filed 05/09/14 page 14 of 17
case 2:14-cv-00160-JTM-PRC document 1 filed 05/09/14 page 15 of 17
case 2:14-cv-00160-JTM-PRC document 1 filed 05/09/14 page 16 of 17
case 2:14-cv-00160-JTM-PRC document 1 filed 05/09/14 page 17 of 17
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

ORLESTER JOHNSON, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

v. ) Cause No.: 3:14-CV-2042-WCL-PRC 

) 

THE RIDGE COMPANY ) 

) 

Defendant. ) 

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE’SREPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

This matter is before the Court for an Order on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation (“R & R”) relating to the disposition of Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions [DE 

38], filed on August 5, 2015. The Motion related to a series of discovery violations by the Plaintiff, 

who is proceeding pro se, and sought not only monetary damages for fees incurred by the 

violations but to have the Plaintiff’s claim dismissed. Subsequent to the Motion’s filing and other 

attempts by the Magistrate Judge to resolve the dispute, the undersigned entered an Order [DE 48] 

on October 6, 2015, referring this matter to Magistrate Judge Cherry for an R & R on this motion 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B). 

The following day, Magistrate Judge Cherry entered his R & R wherein he recommended 

that the undersigned grant Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions [DE 38], provide the Plaintiff a final, 

28-day extension in which to file responses to the outstanding discovery requests, and award 

Defendant reasonable costs (including attorney fees) caused by Plaintiff’s failure to comply with 

discovery. [DE 48]. The parties had fourteen days after being served with a copy of the R & R to 

file written objections thereto with the Clerk of Court. The Plaintiff filed no objections to the 

R&R. 
The undersigned has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s R & R and finds it 

thoughtful, reasonable, and well-taken. The R & R is APPROVED. [DE 50]. The Motion for 

Sanctions is GRANTED [DE 38] with reasonable costs (including attorney fees) granted to the 

Defendant as set out in the R & R. The Defendant shall have 14 days to submit a statement of 

reasonable costs and fees to the Court. The Plaintiff is FURTHER ADVISED that he has 28 

days to file responses to the outstanding discovery requests set forth in the R & R. No further 

extensions will be granted and Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the discovery requests within the 

28 day time frame may result in additional sanctions INCLUDING DISMISSAL of his 

Complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b). 

Entered: This 9th day of November, 2015 

s/ William C. Lee 

United States District Court