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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6125

KEITH MILLER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

SHERIFF AL CANNON,

Respondent - Appellee,

and

CHIEF BEATTY; SCARLET WILSON; PRELIMINARY HEARING COURT 

TRANSCRIPT RECORDS; JUDGE GOSNELL; ATTY PATRICIA KENNEDY, 

Respondents.

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

Charleston. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (2:17-cv-02752-TMC)

Submitted: March 29, 2018 Decided: April 3, 2018

Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith Miller, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Keith Miller, a South Carolina pretrial detainee, seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Miller’s 

28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition without prejudice.*

 The district court referred this case 

to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge 

recommended that relief be denied and advised Miller that failure to file timely specific 

objections to this recommendation would waive appellate review of a district court order 

based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is 

necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the 

parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 

F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Miller has 

waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. 

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 this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

 * The district court improperly characterized Miller’s pleading as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

(2012) petition. Petitions by state pretrial detainees like Miller are properly construed as 

28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petitions. In re Wright, 826 F.3d 774, 782 (4th Cir. 2016).
#### Arthur SOGOYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-70859.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 12, 2011.*

Filed July 25, 2011.

Ahmed M. Abdallah, Esquire, Hollywood, CA, for Petitioner.

Anthony John Messuri, Esquire, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Arthur Sogoyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel and changed circumstances arising in the country of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. *Ghahremani v. Gonzales,*498 F.3d 993, 997-99 (9th Cir.2007). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Sogoyan’s motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed more than six months after the final order of removal, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Sogoyan did not establish that he acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, *see Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2003) (equitable tolling available where “a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due *990diligence”). Sogoyan did not establish eligibility for any of the regulatory exceptions to the filing deadline. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(8); *see also Najmabadi v. Holder,*597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.2010) (evidence of changed circumstances in the country of removal lacks the requisite materiality where it simply recounts generalized conditions); *cf. Malty v. Ashcroft,*381 F.3d 942, 944 (9th Cir.2004).

In light of our disposition, we do not reach Sogoyan’s remaining contentions.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                        (435,000)
<SECURITIES>                                25,157,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               25,322,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   323,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            69,791,000
<PP&E>                                      31,032,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              14,543,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             100,520,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       23,418,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,498,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  74,749,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               100,520,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            64,341,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               49,621,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            12,337,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              68,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,517,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   932,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,585,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,585,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Sean F. Moran, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Sontra Medical Corporation; 

 

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

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report. 

 

4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small businessissuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The small business issuer’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

(a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

**Date: November 10, 2004**
EXHIBIT
32.2
  PERICOM
SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION
  CERTIFICATION
OF 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 this annual report of Pericom Semiconductor Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the twelve months ended June 28, 2008 (the
“Report”), I, Angela Chen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63,
Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my
knowledge:
  (1) the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, 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 at the dates
and for the periods indicated.
 
 June 4,
2009
  By:
              /s/ Angela ChenAngela
      ChenChief
      Financial OfficerPericom
      Semiconductor Corporation
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

LAWRENCE E. JAFFE PENSION PLAN, ON 

BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL OTHERS 

SIMILARLY SITUATED,

Plaintiffs,

Lead Case No. 02-C-5893 

(Consolidated)

v.

CLASS ACTION

Judge Ronald A. Guzman

HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET 

AL.,

Defendants.

DEFENDANT HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET AL.’S

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Notice is hereby given that Household International, Inc., William F. Aldinger, David A. 

Schoenholz, and Gary Gilmer, defendants in the above-named case, hereby appeal to the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit from the final judgment entered in this action on 

the 17th day of October, 2013.

DATED: November 12, 2013 /s/ Paul D. Clement

Paul D. Clement 

BANCROFT PLLC

1919 M Street, NW, Suite 470

Washington, DC 20036

(202) 234-0090

R. Ryan Stoll

Mark E. Rakoczy

SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE,

MEAGHER & FLOM

155 North Wacker Drive

Chicago, IL 60606

(312) 407-0700

Case: 1:02-cv-05893 Document #: 1906 Filed: 11/12/13 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:61707
2

Thomas J. Kavaler 

Patricia Farren

Jason M. Hall

CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP

80 Pine Street

New York, NY 10005

(212) 701-3000

Attorneys for Defendants Household 

International, Inc., William F. Aldinger, 

David A. Schoenholz, and Gary Gilmer

Case: 1:02-cv-05893 Document #: 1906 Filed: 11/12/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:61708
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on November 12, 2013, I electronically filed Defendant Household 

International, Inc., et al.’s Notice of Appeal and this Certificate of Service with the Clerk of the 

Court for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by using the CM/ECF 

system.

The ECF system will send notification of the filing to the following: 

Michael J. Dowd, Esq. 

Daniel S. Drosman, Esq. 

Spencer A. Burkholz, Esq. 

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 

655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 

San Diego, CA 92101 

Marvin A. Miller, Esq. 

Lori A. Fanning, Esq. 

MILLER LAW LLC 

115 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2910 

Chicago, IL 60603 

/s/ Paul D. Clement

Paul D. Clement 

BANCROFT PLLC

1919 M Street, NW, Suite 470

Washington, DC 20036

(202) 234-0090

Attorney for Defendants Household 

International, Inc., William F. Aldinger,

David A. Schoenholz, and Gary Gilmer

Case: 1:02-cv-05893 Document #: 1906 Filed: 11/12/13 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:61709
#### Maria Rella, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 65656.)

—In a claim for damages for personal injuries, claimant appeals from a judgment of the Court of Claims (McCabe, J.), dated August 10, 1984, which, after a trial on the issue of liability only, dismissed the claim.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Claimant was injured when she was struck on the head from behind while visiting her son who was a patient at the Harlem Valley Psychiatric Center. Claimant neither saw nor heard her attacker, and the event was not witnessed by anyone else. Investigators from the institution and the State Police failed to identify the assailant.

*592Claimant offered into evidence proof that a geriatric patient, known to be assaultive in the past, was absent from his building immediately after the incident. There was no other evidence linking that patient to the attack and no evidence at all concerning the supervision of that or any other hospital patient.

The Court of Claims correctly determined that claimant failed to sustain her burden of proving defendant’s negligence. While it was possible that the attack resulted from defendant’s negligent supervision of a hospital patient, no such negligence was shown nor was claimant able to prove the identity of her assailant. Moreover, there were many possible explanations for the occurrence which would be consistent with a finding of due care on defendant’s part. In such circumstances, claimant has failed to prove that the negligence of defendant caused the injury *(see, Ingersoll v Liberty Bank,*278 NY 1). Negligence cannot be presumed from the mere occurrence of an injury and the State is not required in every case to monitor its patients’ activities 24 hours per day *(see, Mochen v State of New York,*57 AD2d 719).

It was not error for the Court of Claims to quash the subpoena directed to the executive director of the psychiatric center. Her affidavit clearly showed that she had no personal knowledge of the incident, having derived all of her information from the investigator, who did testify at the trial. Since it was apparent that the executive director could not give relevant testimony, the subpoena was properly quashed *(see, Matter of Beach v Shanley,*62 NY2d 241).

Since claimant offered no evidence of amnesia and indeed her testimony showed otherwise, there was no occasion to apply the lesser standard of proof applicable to amnesiacs *(see, Schechter v Klanfer,*28 NY2d 228). Nor would it have been appropriate to apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to the facts at bar *(see, Abbott v Page Airways,*23 NY2d 502). Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
Case: 1:03-cr-00011 Document #: 24 Filed: 04/02/03 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:103

Case: 1:03-cr-00011 Document #: 24 Filed: 04/02/03 Page 2 of 15 PageID #:104

Case: 1:03-cr-00011 Document #: 24 Filed: 04/02/03 Page 3 of 15 PageID #:105

Case: 1:03-cr-00011 Document #: 24 Filed: 04/02/03 Page 4 of 15 PageID #:106

Case: 1:03-cr-00011 Document #: 24 Filed: 04/02/03 Page 5 of 15 PageID #:107

Case: 1:03-cr-00011 Document #: 24 Filed: 04/02/03 Page 6 of 15 PageID #:108

Case: 1:03-cr-00011 Document #: 24 Filed: 04/02/03 Page 7 of 15 PageID #:109

Case: 1:03-cr-00011 Document #: 24 Filed: 04/02/03 Page 8 of 15 PageID #:110

Case: 1:03-cr-00011 Document #: 24 Filed: 04/02/03 Page 9 of 15 PageID #:111

Case: 1:03-cr-00011 Document #: 24 Filed: 04/02/03 Page 10 of 15 PageID #:112

Case: 1:03-cr-00011 Document #: 24 Filed: 04/02/03 Page 11 of 15 PageID #:113

Case: 1:03-cr-00011 Document #: 24 Filed: 04/02/03 Page 12 of 15 PageID #:114

Case: 1:03-cr-00011 Document #: 24 Filed: 04/02/03 Page 13 of 15 PageID #:115

Case: 1:03-cr-00011 Document #: 24 Filed: 04/02/03 Page 14 of 15 PageID #:116

Case: 1:03-cr-00011 Document #: 24 Filed: 04/02/03 Page 15 of 15 PageID #:117
Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATIONS**     I, Steven L Muellner certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Meade Instruments Corp.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: November 29, 2006  By: /s/ Steven L. Muellner       President and CEO  
28
<PAGE>   1

EXHIBIT 11

The following table sets forth the computation of basic and diluted
earnings per share:
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                 Three months ended March 31,
                                                                                  2001                2000
                                                                             --------------      --------------
<S>                                                                              <C>                 <C>
Numerator:
Net (loss)                                                                       (1,425,001)         (1,763,480)
Dividends on Series A preferred stock                                                  (763)             (5,703)
Dividends on Series B preferred stock                                               (51,781)            (52,213)
                                                                             --------------      --------------

Numerator for basic and diluted earnings (loss) per
share-income (loss) available to common shareholders                             (1,477,545)         (1,821,396)
                                                                             --------------      --------------

Denominator:
Denominator for basic earnings (loss) per share-
weighted average shares outstanding                                               8,979,909           6,889,867
Effect of dilutive securities
Warrants                                                                               --                  --
                                                                             --------------      --------------

Dilutive potential common shares denominator
for diluted earnings (loss) per share adjusted
weighted-average shares and assumed conversion                                    8,979,909           6,889,867
                                                                             --------------      --------------

Basic earnings (loss) per share                                                       (0.16)              (0.26)
                                                                             --------------      --------------

Diluted earnings (loss) per share                                                     (0.16)              (0.26)
                                                                             --------------      --------------




</TABLE>
# Official Journal C 430/2019

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 430 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6220 December 2019 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 430

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6220 December 2019

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| 2019/C 430/01 | Statement of revenue and expenditure of Eurojust for the financial year 2019 — amending budget No 1 | 1 |
| 2019/C 430/02 | Statement of revenue and expenditure of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency for the financial year 2019 — amending budget No 2 | 7 |
| 2019/C 430/03 | Statement of revenue and expenditure of the European GNSS Agency for the financial year 2019 — amending budget No 2 | 12 |
| 2019/C 430/04 | Statement of revenue and expenditure of the Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency for the financial year 2019 — amending budget No 2 | 16 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

2019/C 430/01

Statement of revenue and expenditure of Eurojust for the financial year 2019 — amending budget No 1

1

2019/C 430/02

Statement of revenue and expenditure of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency for the financial year 2019 — amending budget No 2

7

2019/C 430/03

Statement of revenue and expenditure of the European GNSS Agency for the financial year 2019 — amending budget No 2

12

2019/C 430/04

Statement of revenue and expenditure of the Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency for the financial year 2019 — amending budget No 2

16

---

| | Corrigenda |
| --- | --- |
| 2019/C 430/05 | Corrigendum to the Statement of revenue and expenditure of the Community Plant Variety Office for the financial year 2019 ( OJ C 193, 7.6.2019 ) | 20 |

Corrigenda

2019/C 430/05

Corrigendum to the Statement of revenue and expenditure of the Community Plant Variety Office for the financial year 2019 ( OJ C 193, 7.6.2019 )

( OJ C 193, 7.6.2019 )

20

---

All amounts in this budget document are expressed in euro unless otherwise indicated.

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN