alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

SEP 4 1998

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

ALI MEHDIPOUR, 

Petitioner - Appellant, No. 98-6118

v. (D.C. No. CIV-97-1712-A)

OKLAHOMA COUNTY SHERIFF;

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA;

OKLAHOMA COUNTY DISTRICT

ATTORNEY; and OKLAHOMA CITY

POLICE DEPARTMENT, 

(W.D. Okla.)

Respondent - Appellee.

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before ANDERSON, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The

case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
1

 We grant Petitioner’s Motion to Enter Relevant Documentation which we

construe as a motion to supplement the record. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(e).

2

 According to Petitioner’s Motion to Expedite, his criminal trial in

Oklahoma state court is scheduled to begin on September 28, 1998.

-2-

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking to enjoin his Oklahoma state criminal

proceeding. He alleges that the arrest, search, and seizure by the Oklahoma

Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs violated his Fourth Amendment rights

and that the state court failed to provide a probable cause determination hearing

on his state petition for writ of habeas corpus. The magistrate judge

recommended that the petition be dismissed. The district court adopted the

magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendation and, together with its reliance

on the doctrines of abstention and exhaustion, it dismissed the petition. On

appeal, Petitioner requests that we issue a certificate of appealability and claims

that the magistrate judge and the district court erroneously construed his claims.1

After thoroughly reviewing the briefs and the record, we agree with the

district court that the federal habeas petition is premature.2 Thus, we deny

Petitioner a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal for substantially the

same reasons as stated in the district court’s Order filed February 18, 1998. We 
-3-

also deny Petitioner’s Motion to Expedite Appeal.

DENIED and DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

Monroe McKay

Circuit Judge
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                            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 Docucorp International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the three and nine months ended April 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Michael D. Andereck, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on my knowledge:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a)
          or 15 (d) of the Securities and 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/ Michael D. Andereck
------------------------------------
Michael D. Andereck
President and Chief Executive Officer
June 16, 2003
exv10w74







Exhibit 10.74


Executive Park West II

4720 Gettysburg Rd.
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055


First Addendum to Lease Agreement



This first amendment is made as of the 1st day of
October, 2008, by and between Old
Gettysburg Associates II, LP, a (“Landlord”), and Select Medical Corporation, a (“Tenant”).




BACKGROUND:





	                                                       
	A.	 	Landlord and Tenant are parties to that certain Office Lease Agreement
dated October 1, 2003
pursuant to which Landlord leased to Tenant, and Tenant leased from Landlord, approximately
8,644 rentable square feet of space in the building located at
4720 Gettysburg Rd., Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the
meanings ascribed to them in the Lease.
	                                                        
	 
	B.	 	Landlord and Tenant now desire to amend the Lease as hereinafter set forth.




NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained herein, and
intending to be legally bound hereby, Landlord and Tenant agree as follows:





	 	 	Effective on October 1, 2008, the following terms contained in the Basic Lease shall be
amended as follows:






	 	1.	 	Tenant will continue to lease 8,644 rentable square feet in suites 101/102/301
except that the term as of October 1, 2008 shall be on a month to month basis at a rate
of $21.13 per rentable square foot. Monthly payments beginning October 1, 2008 will be
$15,220.64. The Expense Stop will remain in effect per the original lease agreement.
	 
	 	2.	 	This may be cancelled by either party with a 30 day notice.




All other terms and conditions contained in the Lease and not amended hereby remain in full force
and effect.




 









 





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Landlord and Tenant have caused this first Amendment to be duly executed.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	Landlord: Old Gettysburg Associates II, LP	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	WITNESS:
	 	Illegible
 
	 	By:	 	/s/ John Ortenzio
 
	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	Select Capital Commercial Properties, Inc.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	John Ortenzio, President	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	Agent for Owner	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	Tenant: Select Medical Corporation	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	ATTEST:

	 	Illegible
	 	By:
	 	/s/ Michael E. Tarvin	 	 
	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	Michael E. Tarvin	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	(Print name)	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Name:

	 	Illegible
	 	Title:
	 	Executive Vice President
Exhibit 32.2

 

CERTIFICATION

 
| Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I hereby certify that: |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 
| I have reviewed the Annual Report on Form 10-K; |
|-------------------------------------------------|

 

to the best of my knowledge, this Annual Report on Form 10-K (i) fully complies with the requirements of section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d); and (ii) the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of Tengasco, Inc. and its subsidiaries during the period covered by this Report.

 

Dated: March 30, 2005

 
|   | s/Mark A. RuthMark A. Ruth,Principal Financial and Accounting Officer |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 Annual Report of Wolverine Tube, Inc. on Form 10-K for
the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James E. Deason, Chief
Financial Officer of Wolverine Tube, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

          (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
               or 15(d) of the Securities and 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 Wolverine Tube, Inc. and will be retained by Wolverine Tube, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

/s/  James E. Deason

James E. Deason
Chief Financial Officer
March 10, 2004
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7110

KEVIN JACKSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

EMERY FLOREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

RICK FOXWELL, Warden; MARTIN O’MALLEY; GARY D. MAYNARD; 

HOWARD RAY, JR.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. 

(1:13-cv-02450-RDB)

Submitted: December 31, 2014 Decided: January 6, 2015

Before KING, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Tamal Ajani Banton, Assistant 

Attorney General, Pikesville, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kevin Jackson appeals the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Jackson v. Foxwell, No. 1:13-cv-02450-RDB (D. Md. July 

17, 2014). We deny Jackson’s motions for appropriate relief, to 

strike Appellees’ informal brief, and for appointment of 

counsel. 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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Brian K. Bell, Jr., Appellant.

[942 NYS2d 852]

Appeal from a judgment of the Cayuga County Court (Mark H. Fandrich, A.J.), rendered September 16, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of sexual abuse in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.65 [3]). As the People correctly concede, de*1570fendant’s waiver of the right to appeal is invalid because County Court did not ensure “that the defendant understood that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty” *(People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). Although defendant’s contention that the court abused its discretion in failing to adjudicate him a youthful offender is not encompassed by the invalid waiver of the right to appeal, we nevertheless reject that contention. “ ‘The determination . . . whether to grant . . . youthful offender status rests within the sound discretion of the court and depends upon all the attending facts and circumstances of the case’ ” *(People v Dawson,*71 AD3d 1490, 1490 [2010], *lv denied*15 NY3d 749 [2010]). Here, the record reflects that the court considered the relevant facts and circumstances in denying defendant’s request for youthful offender status, including the mitigating factors cited by defense counsel at sentencing. Although a contrary ruling would not have been unreasonable, we cannot conclude that the court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s request. Present — Smith, J.P., .Fahey, Peradotto and Lindley, JJ.
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-20110

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ISRAEL ESPERICUETA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:90-CR-428-12

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Israel Espericueta, federal prisoner # 59164-079, was convicted in a jury

trial for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, conspiracy to

launder money, and aiding and abetting money laundering. He received

concurrent terms of imprisonment of 360 months, 60 months, and 240 months,

respectively, for each count. His 360-month sentence subsequently was reduced

to 262 months of imprisonment.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 22, 2010

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

Case: 08-20110 Document: 00511058327 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/22/2010
No. 08-20110

2

Espericueta appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

motion for a reduction of sentence. He argues that “[g]iven the recent

clarification of U.S. Sentencing Guidelines,” his sentence should be reduced

because under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c)(1), a prior conviction for an insufficient funds

check should not have been used to increase his criminal history score by three

points. He specifies that amendment 709 to the Sentencing Guidelines clarified

this issue. Espericueta also moves this court for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis (IFP) on appeal. To obtain leave to proceed IFP on appeal, Espericueta

must show that he is a pauper and that he will present a nonfrivolous issue for

appeal. See Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982).

Because amendments to the Guidelines cannot be considered in a

§ 3582(c)(2) motion unless they are listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c) and because

amendment 709 is not listed in § 1B1.10(c), Espericueta has not shown that he

is entitled to a reduction in his sentence. See United States v. Drath, 89 F.3d

216, 217-18 (5th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, Espericueta has failed to demonstrate

that the district court abused its discretion in denying him a reduction of his

sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Shaw, 30 F.3d 26, 28-29

(5th Cir. 1994). 

As Espericueta has not shown that his appeal presents a nonfrivolous

issue, his request for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED. See Carson, 689 F.2d at

586. Because his appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

Case: 08-20110 Document: 00511058327 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/22/2010
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

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

______________________ MG FREESITES LTD., Appellant

v.
SCORPCAST, LLC , dba HaulStars , Appellee

______________________

2022

- 2221, 2022

- 2233

______________________ Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No s . IPR2021

- 00510 and IPR2021

- 00512.

------------------------------------------------- SCORPCAST, LLC, dba HaulStars , Appellant

v.
MG FREESITES LTD., Appellee

______________________
2022

- 2289

______________________ Case: 22-2221 Document: 38 Page: 1 Filed: 07/27/2023MG FREESITES LTD

. v. SCORPCAST , LLC 2

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial a nd Appeal Board in No. IPR2021

- 00510.

______________________ ON MOTION

______________________
P ER C URIAM

.
O R D E RUpon consideration of Scorpcast, LLC’s unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss its cross

- appeal, Appeal No. 2022

- 2289, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b),
I T IS O RDERED T HAT : (1) The motion is granted. Appeal No. 2022

- 2289 is dismissed. The revised official caption for the remaining appeals is reflected in this order. (2) Each party shall bear its own costs (fo r Appeal No. 2022

- 2289). (3) Within 30 days of the date of filing of this order, the parties are directed to file corrected briefs in the remaining appeals omitting all arguments related to Appeal No. 2022

- 2289.

July 27
, 2023 Date F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Jarrett B. Perlow Jarrett B. Perlow Clerk of Court ISSUED AS A MANDATE (for 2022

- 2289 only): July 27, 2023 Case: 22-2221 Document: 38 Page: 2 Filed: 07/27/2023
1 The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 04-3488

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Richard L. Wittman, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: June 28, 2005 Filed: July 18, 2005

___________ Before SMITH, FAGG, and MAGILL, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Richard L. Wittman pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, and was sentenced to 180 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release. The conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. See United States v. Wittman , No. 94-1787, 1994 WL 615692 (8th Cir. Nov. 8, 1994) (unpublished per curiam). Wittman later moved for clarification of his sentence, asserting that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) miscalculated his good-time credit. The district court 1 denied the-2- motion after finding that the BOP’s method of calculating good-time credit based on the amount of time actually served, rather than on the sentence imposed, was a reasonable interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b). On appeal, Wittman argues that the BOP’s calculation method is contrary to Congress’s unambiguous intent that prisoners are eligible to earn 54 days good-time credit for every year of their sentence. He also argues that, even if section 3624(b) is ambiguous, the district court should have applied the rule of lenity and resolved the ambiguity in his favor. Wittman’s arguments fail. SeeJames v. Outlaw , 126 Fed. Appx. 758, 759 (8th Cir. 2005) (unpublished per curiam) (finding § 3624(b) ambiguous, because it does not clearly indicate whether prisoner’s good-time credit should be based on time served in prison or on sentence imposed, and holding that BOP policy of calculating good-time credit based on actual time served is entitled to deference and is reasonable interpretation of § 3624(b)); O’Donald v. Johns , 402 F.3d 172, 173 (3d Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (finding § 3624(b) ambiguous and holding BOP calculation method is reasonable; court will not resort to rule of lenity when ambiguity of statute can be otherwise resolved); Perez-Olivio v. Chavez , 394 F.3d 45, 51-53 (1st Cir. 2005) (same). Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


  CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

      We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No.'s 333-117116, 333-107416, 333-87266, 333-64238,
333-63950, 333-44852, 333-87759, 333-62437, 333-11577, 333-96302, 333-81236, and
333-44336) and Form S-3 (No.'s 333-114793, 333-109641 and 333-76544) of our
report dated February 18, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Epimmune Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the
year ended December 31, 2004.

                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

San Diego, California
March 28, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1298 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.1298

                       One Hundred Fifth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
the twenty-seventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-
                                  eight

                                 An Act

 
  To designate a Federal building located in Florence, Alabama, as the 
               ``Justice John McKinley Federal Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF JUSTICE JOHN MCKINLEY FEDERAL BUILDING.
    The Federal building located at 210 North Seminary Street in 
Florence, Alabama, shall be known and designated as the ``Justice John 
McKinley Federal Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Justice John 
McKinley Federal Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
Case: 1:03-cv-04502 Document #: 52 Filed: 01/26/04 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:469

Case: 1:03-cv-04502 Document #: 52 Filed: 01/26/04 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:470

Case: 1:03-cv-04502 Document #: 52 Filed: 01/26/04 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:471

Case: 1:03-cv-04502 Document #: 52 Filed: 01/26/04 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:472

Case: 1:03-cv-04502 Document #: 52 Filed: 01/26/04 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:473

Case: 1:03-cv-04502 Document #: 52 Filed: 01/26/04 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:474

Case: 1:03-cv-04502 Document #: 52 Filed: 01/26/04 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:475

Case: 1:03-cv-04502 Document #: 52 Filed: 01/26/04 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:476

Case: 1:03-cv-04502 Document #: 52 Filed: 01/26/04 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:477

Case: 1:03-cv-04502 Document #: 52 Filed: 01/26/04 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:478
Order filed August 14, 2018 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-18-00157-CR

____________

ARTHUR CHRISTOPHER TATUM, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 228th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 271613

ORDER

Appellant is not represented by counsel. Appellant is appealing from the 

denial of his motion for DNA testing. Appellant is not entitled to appointed counsel 

unless reasonable grounds exist for the filing of the motion for post-conviction DNA 

testing. See Ex parte Gutierrez, 337 S.W.3d 883, 891–92 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011).

The trial court has previously determined that appellant did not set out any fact or 

allegations to support a finding that DNA testing and appointment of an attorney are 

reasonable. No brief has been filed. Rule 38.8 provides that “the appellate court may 
consider the appeal without briefs, as justice may require.” Tex. R. App. P. 38.8 

(b)(4).

A hearing has already been held as required under Rule 38.8. Because the trial 

court has already held one hearing to make the findings required under Rule 38.8, 

and we can find nothing in the rules or case law that requires this court to once again 

send this matter back to the trial court, we decline to do so. 

Therefore, we ORDER appellant to file a brief in this appeal on or before 

September 12, 2018. If appellant fails to file his brief as ordered, we will decide this 

appeal upon the record before the court. See Lott v. State, 874 S.W.2d 687, 688 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1994) (affirming conviction on record alone where appellant failed to 

file a pro se brief after being properly admonished); Coleman v. State, 774 S.W.2d 

736, 738–39 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1989, no pet.) (holding that former 

rule 74(l)(2) (now Rule 38.8(b)) permitted an appeal to be considered without briefs 

“as justice may require” when a pro se appellant has not complied with the rules of 

appellate procedure).

PER CURIAM