alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Melvin Richardson, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

J.D. Whitehead, 

Respondent. 

'UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

FILED 

SEP 162009 

Clerk, U.S. District and 

Bankruptcy Courts 

09 1758 

This action, brought pro se, is before the Court on the petitioner's application for a writ of 

habeas corpus, accompanied by an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will 

grant the application to proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss the case for lack of 

jurisdiction. 

Petitioner is a prisoner at the Federal Correctional Institution in Cumberland, Maryland. 

He challenges a judgment of conviction entered by the Superior Court of the District of 

Columbia following his plea of guilty. See Pet. at 1. Although petitioner has submitted a form 

petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, it is established that challenges to a Superior Court judgment of 

conviction must be pursued in that court under D.C. Code § 23-110, see Blair-Bey v. Quick, 151 

F.3d 1036, 1042-43 (D.C. Cir. 1998); Byrdv. Henderson, 119 F.3d 34, 36-37 (D.C. Cir. 1997), 

and that absent a showing of an inadequate or ineffective local remedy, "a District of Columbia 

prisoner has no recourse to a federal judicial forum." Garris v. Lindsay, 794 F.2d 722, 726 (D.C. 

Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 993 (1986) (internal footnote omitted). Under District of 

Columbia law, 

[ an] application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a prisoner who is authorized to 

3 
apply for relief by motion pursuant to this section shall not be entertained by ... any 

Federal ... court if it appears ... that the Superior Court has denied him relief, unless 

it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the 

legality of his detention. 

D.C. Code §23-110(g). The Superior Court and the D.C. Court of Appeals have entertained 

petitioner's collateral challenges to his conviction. See Pet. at 3-4. Petitioner's lack of success in 

the local courts, however, does not render the local remedy inadequate or ineffective, see Garris 

v. Lindsay, 794 F.2d at 727; Charles v. Chandler, 180 F.3d 753, 756-58 (6th Cir. 1999) (citing 

cases), and petitioner has provided no other basis for finding the local remedy inadequate. This 

Court therefore lacks authority to entertain the petition. A separate Order of dismissal 

accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. 

Date: September ~09 . 

United States District Judge 

2
Exhibit 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To Intelligroup, Inc.

We consent to the
incorporation by reference in the  Registration Statements of Intelligroup, Inc. previously filed on Forms S-3 (File Nos. 333-56143,
333-67583, 333-73051, and 333-94285) and Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-31809, 333-70244, 333-133751, 333-139639,
and 333-11486) of our report dated February 16, 2007, appearing in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31,
2006.

|/s/ J.H.   Cohn LLP    | 
|---------------------- | 
|                       | 
|                       | 
|Roseland,   New Jersey | 
|March 26,   2007       |
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v George L. Stewart, Appellant.

[948 NYS2d 841]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (M. William Boiler, A.J.), rendered July 15, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed. Present — Scudder, P.J., Carni, Lindley, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-41152

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOHN EARL JACKSON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:16-CR-96-8

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent John Earl Jackson has moved for 

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Jackson has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the 

relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 2, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-41152 Document: 00514664660 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/02/2018
No. 17-41152

2

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is 

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 17-41152 Document: 00514664660 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/02/2018
PAGE 1 – ORDER 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

FABIAN MENDEZ, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

MARION FEATHER, 

 Defendant. 

Case No. 3:15-cv-01583-SU 

ORDER

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

United States Magistrate Judge Patricia Sullivan issued Findings and Recommendation in 

this case on March 29, 2016. Dkt. 17. Judge Sullivan recommended that the Court dismiss the 

petition of Plaintiff Fabian Mendez (“Mendez”) for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241 because the Court lacks subject matter to hear petitioner’s claims and decline to issue a 

certificate of appealability. No party has filed objections. 

Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), the court may “accept, reject, or modify, in 

whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1). If a party files objections to a magistrate’s findings and recommendations, “the court 

shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings 

or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 

Case 3:15-cv-01583-SU Document 20 Filed 04/20/16 Page 1 of 2
PAGE 2 – ORDER 

If no party objects, the Act does not prescribe any standard of review. See Thomas v. Arn, 

474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985) (“There is no indication that Congress, in enacting [the Act], intended 

to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are filed.”); 

United States. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (holding that the 

court must review de novo magistrate’s findings and recommendations if objection is made, “but 

not otherwise”). 

Although review is not required in the absence of objections, the Act “does not preclude 

further review by the district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other standard.” 

Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. Indeed, the Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) 

recommend that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed,” the court review the magistrate’s findings 

and recommendations for “clear error on the face of the record.” 

No party having made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory 

Committee and reviews Judge Sullivan’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the 

face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Sullivan’s 

Findings and Recommendation (Dkt. 17). Mendez’s petition for writ of habeas corpus under 

28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Dkt. 1) is dismissed. The Court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability 

on the basis that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this 20th day of April, 2016. 

 /s/ Michael H. Simon 

Michael H. Simon 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-01583-SU Document 20 Filed 04/20/16 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1




Certification by the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350


as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Entheos Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on the Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Derek Cooper, President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Director
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:





(i)         the Report filed by the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(ii)        The information contained in that Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company on the dates and for the periods presented therein.





ENTHEOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.Date:April 10, 2009

By:

/s/ Derek CooperDerek Cooper
President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Director





This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging,
or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version 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 or its staff upon request.
#### Patrick Minogue et al., Appellants, v Sylvia Kaufman, Respondent.

An easement of way confers the lawful right to use the surface of property owned by another for unobstructed pas*792sage, with the right to enter upon said property and prepare it for that purpose, together with such other incidental rights as are necessary to the enjoyment of the right of passage *(see, Herman v Roberts,*119 NY 37, 42). Where the grantor expressly states that the creation of an easement is to provide a right-of-way for ingress to and egress from the grantee’s property, then the grantee may only use the easement in such manner as is reasonably necessary and convenient for that purpose *(see, Dalton v Levy,*258 NY 161, 167; *Grafton v Moir,*130 NY 465, 470-471).

In this case, the trial court properly concluded that the easement contained in the plaintiffs’ deed, providing for "ingress and egress over a 30-foot right of way” over a portion of the defendant’s property should be limited to the 12-foot paved roadway, since the plaintiffs failed to establish that roadway was inadequate for the expressly stated purpose intended by the grantee in creating the easement *(see, Dalton v Levy, supra; Grafton v Moir, supra,*at pp 470-471; *Fairfield Props. v Pepe,*56 AD2d 883, *lv denied*42 NY2d 805). The only obstruction to free access into and out of the plaintiffs’ property was a fence erected by the defendant, which the trial court ordered removed, and which apparently has been removed.

We further agree with the trial court that nothing in the language of the grant suggests that the plaintiffs had a broad right to use the entire 30-foot parcel for another purpose such as landscaping the strips of grass surrounding the roadway on either side *(see, Le Sawyer v Squillace,*14 AD2d 961, *lv denied*11 NY2d 648; *cf. Missionary Socy. v Evrotas,*256 NY 86). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.
Robert S. Wagner, OSB #844115

David C. Lewis, OSB #953348

MILLER & WAGNER LLP

Trial Lawyers

2210 N.W. Flanders Street

Portland, OR 97210-3408

Telephone: (503) 299-6116

Facsimile: (503) 299-6106

E-mail: rsw@miller-wagner.com

dcl@miller-wagner.com

Of Attorneys for Defendants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

SANDRA E. GINGRICH,

Plaintiff,

vs.

NORTHERN OREGON REGIONAL

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY (NORCOR);

BENJAMIN MACLEOD; and MICHAEL J.

COOK,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 3:16-cv-00428-HZ

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Stipulated Motion for Order of Dismissal with

Prejudice is GRANTED and this action is dismissed with prejudice and without costs to

any party.

DATED this ____ day of March, 2017.

_________________________________

Honorable Marco A. Hernandez

Page 1 - ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Case 3:16-cv-00428-HZ Document 19 Filed 03/13/17 Page 1 of 1
CONSENT OF GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD.





Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the Annual Report) of Cumberland Resources Ltd. (the Company), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.



We hereby consent to the references to our name under the heading Narrative Description of Business -- Meadowbank Gold Project, Nunavut Territory, Canada in the Companys Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2006 which is included as part of the Annual Report, and to all other references to our name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report.







Golder Associates Ltd.





By: /s/ Neil Wedge



Name: Neil Wedge, P.Eng.



Title: Principal







March 29, 2007
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 4355

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
MELVILLE DANCY , Defendant

- Appellant

.

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

. Timothy M. Cain , District Judge. ( 6:16

- cr - 00861

- TMC

- 1 )

Submitted : December 15 , 202 2 Decided: December 19, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

ON BRIEF: Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Maxwell B. Cauthen, II I, Assistant United States Attorney , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-4355 Doc: 22 Filed: 12/19/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Melville Dancy appeals the district court’s decision to rev oke his supervised release and impose a n eight

- month sentence. While this appeal was pending, Dancy was released from custody. “When a case or controversy ceases to exist

— either due to a change in the facts or
the law

— the litigation is moot, and the cou rt’s subject matter jurisdiction ceases to exist
also.” Porter v. Clarke , 852 F.3d 358, 363 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Because mootness is jurisdictional, we can and must consider it even if neither party has raised it.” United States v. Ketter , 908 F.3d 61, 65 (4th Cir. 2018). Dancy has already served his sentence and faces no additional term of supervised release; thus, there is no longer a live controversy. Dancy’s challenge to the revocation of his supervised
release is therefore moot. See United States v. Hardy , 545 F.3d 280, 283

- 84 (4th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we dismiss the app eal for lack of jurisdiction. 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 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4355 Doc: 22 Filed: 12/19/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
#### Rafter, Respondent, v. Foults *et al.,*Appellants.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department.*

July 1, 1890.)

Judgment modified, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs to either parly to this appeal.
#### Maurice L. GATES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Edward S. ALAMEIDA, Jr., Director, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 06-16080.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 16, 2007.*

Filed April 20, 2007.

Maurice L. Gates, Folsom, CA, pro se.

Dorian Jung, Office of the California Attorney General, Oakland, CA, Respondent-Appellee.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Maurice L. Gates appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition on the merits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a), and we affirm.

Gates contends that his sentence of 28 years to life for possession of 0.18 grams of cocaine in violation of Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11350(a), and possession of paraphernalia for smoking a controlled substance in violation of Cal. Health *&*Safety Code § 11364, constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eight Amendment to the United States Constitution. In light of Gates’ prior convictions for forcible rape and robbery, we conclude that the state court’s decision was not an unreasonable application of the Supreme Court’s gross disproportionality standard. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); *Lockyer v. Andrade,*538 U.S. 63, 66-67, 73-76, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003) (denying habeas relief where petitioner was convicted of theft of videotapes worth approximately $150, and prior offenses included first-degree burglary, transportation of marijuana and escape from prison); *cf. Solem v. Helm,*463 U.S. 277, 297, 103 S.Ct. 3001, 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983) (vacating denial of habeas relief where “all [of Helm’s convictions] were nonviolent and none was a crime against a person”); *Ramirez v. Castro,*365 F.3d 755, 768 (9th Cir.2004) (affirming grant of habeas relief where strikes “were nonviolent in nature”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Colorado River Flow, Sta

Sediment Graphical User I

(CRFSSGUI)

Computer Application Develop

GCMRC by:

Ecometric Research

Steve Wiele, USGS

Tim Randle, BOR
CRFSSGUI Compon

• Unsteady Flow Model – Steve Wiele, 

– Reach-averaged one-dimensional wave pr– Calculates hydrographs at points along the 

in Grand Canyon in support of field studie

– Also predicts water velocity that can be us

travel time and distance (for boating and vapplications)
CRFSSGUI Components 

• STARS – Randle and Pemberton, BO

– One-dimensional steady flow model des

predicts stage and average water velocity cross-sections as a function of discharge

– STARS simulates both stage and sedime

only the stage component of the model hintegrated within this application

– Stage-discharge relations have many app

computation of inundation frequency)
What Do You Do Wit

• Discharge at GCD began increasing ab

9:00 am. What time will I begin to see discharge at RM 30, 60, etc? – wave tr

• The Paria discharged considerable sed

CR on at 9:00 am. When will the sedimshow up at the LCR confluence? – wat
What Do You Do Wi

(cont’d)?

• Discharge at RM 30 is predicted to in

5 to 20 kcfs. What is the associated st– stage-discharge prediction

• If I implement an abrupt 2 hr. minimu

kcfs at GCD, what will the resulting m

flow be at RM 60?
Characteristics of Discharg

Generated by Power Load-F

• The wave form moves downstream faster than t

the water flows. 

• As it progresses downstream, the rising limb of 

and the declining limb flattens. 

• This occurs because the wave speed is a functio

discharge. The higher-gradient component overgradient component, which attenuates the wave

• Attenuation results in a small reduction in the p

more substantial increase in the minimum flow propagates downstream. The duration of minimflows are also reduced.
Colorado River @

•Glen Canyon Dam, Lees Ferry, Grand CanyonTributariesPariaLittle Colorado River

Glen Canyon Dam6 Month Hourly ForecastFrom Hydro LP Model

Create Input Hydrographs

Unsteady Model

Stage-Discharge Lookup Table •STARS predictions •NAU measured

View and Exp•Discharge•Reach-Avera•Stage•Local Velocit

How CRFSSGUI Wo

(www)

Compute Water travel time:•Surface or Average•Local or Reach-Averaged
Coming Soon...

• Predictions of sand and silt/clay 

Paria and LCR based on real-timdischarge (2003)

• Retention and residence time est

sediment based on Wiele’s 1.5d routing model (2003-2005)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A) INTERIM
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND BALANCE SHEET AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B) FORM 10-Q COMMUNICATIONS &
POWER INDUSTRIES HOLDING CORPORATION FOR THE QUARTER ENDED APRIL 3, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001000654
<NAME> COMMUNICATIONS & POWER INDUSTRIES HOLDING CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-02-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-04-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-03-1998
<CASH>                                             327
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   47,730
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     53,405
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               109,992
<PP&E>                                          78,562
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 233,400
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           69,500
<BONDS>                                        129,137
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           19,075
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,287
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   233,400
<SALES>                                        126,175
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               126,175
<CGS>                                           93,480
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   93,480
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,719
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,121
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,194
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,198
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,996
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,996
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>