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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6423

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ROBERT LAWRENCE PAYNE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CR-90-20-R, CA-96-920-R)

Submitted: August 25, 1998 Decided: October 5, 1998

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Lawrence Payne, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Jack Bondurant,

Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Payne, No. CR-90-20-R, CA-96-920-R (W.D.

Va. Mar. 4, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### WINOGRAD v. EPSTEIN.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 11, 1907.)

Action by Joseph Winograd against Samuel Epstein.

No opinion. Motion to resettle order granted, without costs.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-1420

LEBON BRUCE WALKER, a/k/a Larry Gene Platt; PATRICIA ANNETTE LEE-WALKER, a/k/a Angie Platt, Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versusPERRY LONDON, individually and official capacity as a Bail Bondsman; LONDON BAIL BONDING INTERNATIONAL FIDELITY COMPANY, London Bonding Agency, Incorporated, and/or Entity, et al; DENNIS COX, individually and in his official capacity as a Bailman and Bounty Hunter, an agent of London Bail Bonding International Fidelity Company, London Bonding Agency, Incorporated, and/or Equity, et al; DENNIS COX, individually and in his official capacity as a Private Detective, Private Investigator,Agent and Owner of Harford Bureau of Investigation & Process, Ltd., and/or Entity, et al;HARFORD BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS COMPANY, Harford Bureau of Investigations & Process, Ltd., and/or Entity, et al; DENNIS COX, individually and in his official capacity as an Agent and/or Repo Officer for Toyota Motor Credit Company, Toyota Motor Credit Corporation,and/or Entity, et al; TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION, AND/OR ENTITY, Defendants - Appellees.2 Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA95-1629-DKC) Submitted: June 9, 1998 Decided: June 24, 1998 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. LeBon Bruce Walker, Patricia Annette Lee-Walker, Appellants Pro Se. David Eugene Furrer, I. Steven Seigel, John Andrew Schruefer, Jr., SEIGEL, TULLY & FURRER, Baltimore, Maryland; Francis Joseph Gorman, GORMAN & WILLIAMS, Baltimore, Maryland; Michael N. Russo, Jr., FERGUSON, SCHETELICH & HEFFERNAN, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: LeBon Walker and Patricia Lee-Walker appeal from the district court’s orders denying relief on their civil rights complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Walker v. London , No. CA-95-1629-DKC (D. Md. Feb. 1, 1996 and Feb. 21, 1997). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -1 0- 00 39 4- CR David Cepe da JON ES , Appellant
v. The STA TE of Texas, Appellee Fr om County

Court at L aw No. 7, B exar County , Texas Trial Court No. 923841 Honora ble Monica G uerr ero, Judge Presiding PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice

Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: J une 30, 2010 DI SMI SSED FOR L ACK OF J URI SDI CTI ON On April 21, 2010, appellant filed a notice of appe al in which he states “no fina l conviction” [ha s ] b e e n im

p o s e d
. ” I t a

p p e ar s f r o m a r e v ie w o f th e c le r

k ’ s r e c o r d th a t a

p p e ll an t w an ts the trial court to expunge from his rec ords his 2005 arr est for criminal trespass beca use those cha

rg es neve r
re su lte d in

a fi na l c on vic tio n. No fi na l ju dg me nt o r a pp e a la ble order si gne d b y

the tr ia l c ourt

is contained in the c lerk’s r ecor d. There fore , we or dere d appellant to show ca u s e why this appeal04
- 10
- 00 39 4- CR

- 2- should not be dismis sed for lack of jurisdiction. On J une 16, 2010, appellant filed a r esponse that d o e s n o t p r o v id e a

b a s is u p o nw h ic h th is c o u rt m ay e xe r c is e ju

r is d ic ti o no v e r

h is a p p e a l. We there fore dismiss the appe al for la ck of jurisdiction.

PER C URI AM

DO NO T PU B L I SH
Exhibit 31.2

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

I,
Jeffrey A. Wahba, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of HireRight, Inc.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this Annual Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Annual Report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this Annual Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this Annual Report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)), for the registrant and we have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



|Date: March 10, 2008 |  | By: | /s/JEFFREY A. WAHBAJeffrey A. Wahba, Chief Financial
Officer
|-------------------- |  | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Hal M. Krisbergh, the Principal Executive Officer of WorldGate Communications, Inc., hereby certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Form 10-Q of WorldGate Communications, Inc., for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2008, which
this certification accompanies, fully complies with requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and information contained in the
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of WorldGate
Communications, Inc.

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

Dated:
November 14, 2008

/s/ HAL M. KRISBERGH Hal M. Krisbergh Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)


---
Exhibit 32



                            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 of Cobalis Corp. a Nevada corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending March 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Chaslav
Radovich, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certifies to the best of his knowledge, 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 result of
                  operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Cobalis Corp., and will be retained by Cobalis Corp. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



/s/ Chaslav Radovich
--------------------------
Chaslav Radovich
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

August 5, 2005
**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**

|   | (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 result of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                       |   |   |   |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ Reed                  Fisher      |   |   |        |
| Reed                  Fisher               |   |   |        |
| Chief                    Executive Officer |   |   |   |
|                                       |   |   |   |
| January                    11, 2006        |   |   |   |
**EXHIBIT 12.1****CALCULATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES**                       **AAC Group**      **Holding**      **Corp.**  **American Achievement Corporation**   **For the year**  **For the year**  **For the period**  **For the**  **For the year**   **ended August 27,**  **ended August 27,**  **March 26, 2004 –**  **period August 31,**  **ended August 30,**   **2005**  **2005**  **August 28, 2004**  **2003 – March 25, 2004**  **2003** Net income (loss)before income taxes $4,477  $12,251  $10,925  $(4,583) $10,898                      Fixed charges: (1)                                         Interest charges  31,271   23,497   10,257   16,455   28,940 Interest portion oflease expense  829   829   352   626   983                 Total fixed charges  32,100   24,326   10,609   17,081   29,923 Net income fromoperations beforeincome taxes and fixedcharges $36,577  $36,577  $21,534  $12,498  $40,821                 Ratio of earningsto fixed charges:(2)  1.14x  1.50x  2.03x  —   1.36x (1) During the periods presented the Company had no preferred stock outstandingthat required a cash payment. Therefore, the ratio of earnings to combined fixedcharges and preferred dividends was the same as the ratio of earnings to fixed chargesfor each of the periods presented. (2) For purposes of computing this ratio, earnings consist of income (loss) beforetaxes on income and fixed charges. Fixed charges consist of interest expense,amortization of deferred debt issuance costs and the portion of rental expense thatincludes an interest factor. Earnings before fixed charges were insufficient to coverfixed charges by approximately $4.6 million for the period from August 31, 2003 to March25, 2004.
66
#### HELLEN, Appellant, v. BROOKLYN HEIGHTS R. CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 23, 1907.)

Action by George Hellen against the Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company.

No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.
Exhibit 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The
Board of Directors
Regal Entertainment Group:

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-87958) on Form S-8 and (No. 333-108212) on
Form S-3 of Regal Entertainment Group of our report dated February 6, 2004 with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Regal Entertainment Group and subsidiaries as of
January 1, 2004 and December 26, 2002, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the years ended January 1, 2004 and
December 26, 2002, and the related combined statements of operations, parent's investment and cash flows for the period under common control (March 2, 2001 to January 3, 2002),
which report appears in the January 1, 2004 annual report on Form 10-K of Regal Entertainment Group.

As
described in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements, in 2002 the Company changed its method of accounting for goodwill and other intangible assets.

/s/
KPMG LLP

Nashville,
Tennessee
March 15, 2004

---

QuickLinks
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 of Zaldiva, Inc. (the "Registrant")
on Form 10-KSB-A1 for the year ending September 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Annual Report"),
We, Robert B. Lees, President and director and John A. Palmer, Secretary,
Treasurer and director of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

     (1) The Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Registrant.


/s/Robert B. Lees
-----------------
Robert B. Lees
President
Director
10/10/03


/s/John A. Palmer
-----------------
John A. Palmer
Secretary
Treasurer
Director
10/10/03
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cindy MORAN-SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-14648

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Aug. 3, 2011.

Anne R. Schultz, Wifredo A. Ferrer, Kathleen M. Salyer, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, Lawrence D. Lavecchio, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Julia J. Vaglienti, United States Attorney’s Office, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Richard L. Rosenbaum, Arnstein & Lehr, LLP, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before CARNES, WILSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Richard L. Rosenbaum, appointed as Cindy Moran-Sanchez’s counsel for purposes of her appeal, filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief prepared pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Moran-Sanchez’s conviction and sentence is AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Loral Orion, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bernard L. Schwartz,
Chief Executive 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/ Bernard L. Schwartz
--------------------------------
Bernard L. Schwartz
Chief Executive Officer
August 14, 2003
#### Michael HOLTSINGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tonya VOROS; T. Nolan, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-16076.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 16, 2011.*

Filed July 14, 2011.

Carter White, U.C. Davis School of Law, Davis, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Michael Holtsinger, Lancaster, CA, pro se.

Tonya Voros, Susanville, CA, pro se.

Jose Zelidon-Zepeda, Attorney General Office, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: BYBEE and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and EZRA, District Judge.**

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable David A. Ezra, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Hawaii, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

California state prisoner Michael Holt-singer appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant T. Nolan on Holtsinger’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to *334his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Holtsinger also appeals the district court’s award of $500 in compensatory damages in his favor and against Defendant Tonya Voros. Upon consideration of the law, arguments, and record, we affirm on both counts. Because the history of this case is familiar to the parties, we need not recount it here.

We have reviewed the record *de novo,*as we must, *see Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc.,*575 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir.2009), and agree with the district court that no genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether Defendant Nolan was deliberately indifferent to Holtsinger’s medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The undisputed facts show that Nolan, in his position as a psychologist, did not have the authority to diagnose medical needs or prescribe treatment for such, nor did he have the authority to order medical treatment and thus could not ensure that Holt-singer receive emergency medical treatment. *See Cunningham v. Gates,*229 F.3d 1271, 1289 (9th Cir.2000) (explaining that a defendant can be held liable for failure to intercede to prevent constitutional violation only if he had a realistic opportunity to do so). Accordingly, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Defendant Nolan.

The court reviews the district court’s damages determination following a bench trial for clear error. *Lentini v. Cal. Ctr. for the Arts, Escondido,*370 F.3d 837, 843 (9th Cir.2004). Although Holtsinger considers the $500 in compensatory damages awarded to him for Voros’s indifference to be inadequate, a review of the record does not indicate that the district court clearly erred in making such award.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### WELKER et al., Appellants, v. LATHROP et al., Respondents

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

March 27, 1912.)

Action by John W. Welker and others, as trustees of School District No. 12, etc., against Andrew J. Lathrop and another. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. See, also, 139 App. Div. 924, 123 N. Y. Supp. 1148.
Motion Granted, Appeals Dismissed, and Memorandum Opinion filed June 27, 

2019.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-19-00389-CR

NO. 14-19-00390-CR

STEPHANIE RENEE DUNN, Appellant 

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from County Criminal Court at Law No. 14

Harris County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause Nos. 2175317 and 2175316 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Appellant Stephanie Renee Dunn has signed and filed a written request to 

withdraw her notices of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2. Because this court has not 

delivered an opinion, we grant appellant’s request and dismiss the appeals. 

PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Spain and Poissant. 

Do Not Publish – Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 11030 Summary Calendar

JOSE LUIS BRIONES , Plaintiff

- Appellant

v. VELPARITA IVORY, Federal Correctional Institution

- Fort Worth; JERRY MCKINNEY, Federal Correctiona l Institution Fort Worth , Defendant s
- Appellee s

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:13

- CV

- 689

Before KING, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Proceeding in forma pauperis , Jose Luis Briones, federal prisoner
# 39169

- 179, filed the instant civil rig hts suit under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents , 403 U.S. 388 (1971) , to seek redress after one of the defendants
insulted and threatened him while the other witnessed this behavior but did nothing to stop it. The district court dismissed the suit as frivolous and for

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 19, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-11030 Document: 00512635291 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/19/2014No. 13

- 11030

failure to state a claim upon which relief could be gran ted in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(b)(1). We review this dismissal de novo. See Geiger v.
Jowers , 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005)

. Our review of the record and pertinent authority shows no error in connection with the challenged judgment

. One who wishes to proceed under Bivens must show that a federal official infringed his constitutional rights. See Izen v. Catalina , 398 F.3d 363, 367 (5th Cir. 2005). Threats and verbal abuse, such as those alleged by Briones, are not constitutionally actio nable. See Bender v. Brumley , 1 F.3d 271, 274 n.4 (5th Cir. 1993); McFadden v. Lucas , 713 F.2d 143, 146 (5th Cir. 1983). Similarly, Briones failed to raise a viable retaliation claim because the acts of which he complains are, as the district court concl uded, de minimis. See Bibbs v. Early , 541 F.3d 267, 270

- 72 (5th Cir. 2008) ; Morris v. Powell , 449 F.3d 682, 684

- 86 (5th Cir. 2006). Finally, to the extent Briones complains of the processing of his grievance against another prison official not party to t his suit, these
assertions do not raise a viable claim because he has no constitutional right to have his grievances resolved to his liking

. See Geiger , 404 F.3d at 373

- 74 . The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The district court’s dismissal of Briones ’s civil complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387

- 88 (5th Cir. 1996). Briones is CAUTIONED that if he accumulates three strikes he will not be able to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent dan ger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

2 Case: 13-11030 Document: 00512635291 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/19/2014