alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-8072
In Re: ROY HORTON, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Prohibition. (CR-93-40)

No. 95-8074
In Re: ROY HORTON, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-94-51-E) Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 18, 1996 Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roy Horton, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).23 PER CURIAM: Roy Horton has filed petitions for a writ of prohibition and a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to transfer him back to state custody. A writ of prohibition should not issue "unless it clearly appeals that the inferior court is about to exceed its jurisdiction." Smith v. Whitney, 116 U.S. 167, 176 (1886). A writ of prohibition is a drastic remedy which shouldbe granted only where the petitioner's right to the requested relief is indisputable. In re Vargas , 723 F.2d 1461, 1468 (10th Cir. 1983); In re Missouri , 664 F.2d 178, 180 (8th Cir. 1981). A writ of prohibition should be granted only where the petitioner has no other adequate means of relief, In re Banker's Trust Co. , 775 F.2d 545, 547 (3d Cir. 1985), and may not be used as a substitute for the normal appellate process. In re Missouri , 664 F.2d at 180. Horton has failed to establish his right to such relief. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Mandamus relief is only available when there are no other means by which the relief sought could be granted, In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987), and may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re United Steelworkers , 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). The party seeking mandamus relief carries the heavy burden of showing that he has "no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires" and that his right to such relief is "clear and indisputable." Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc. , 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980). Horton has not made such a showing. Accordingly, although4 we grant Horton's applications to proceed in forma pauperis, wedeny his petitions for a writ of prohibition and a writ of mandamus. 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.

PETITIONS DENIED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Unaudited Consolidated Balance Sheets and Consolidated Statements of Operations
for the six month periods ended March 31, 1998 and March 31, 1997 and is
qualified in its entirety be reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         160,472
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  850,375
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,000
<INVENTORY>                                    162,537
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,167,384
<PP&E>                                          15,033
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,927
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,535,058
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          355,795
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,519
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,535,058
<SALES>                                      1,010,681
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,037,960
<CGS>                                          477,861
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  477,861
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               509,050
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,993
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 36,056
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,414
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             27,642
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    27,642
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF

PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JASON BINGAMAN,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 40 WM 2023

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 5 th day of December , 2023, the “King’s Bench” Petition is DENIED.
#### HAKO-MED USA, INC., Hako-Med GMBH, and Achim Hansjurgens, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AXIOM WORLDWIDE, INC., Doe Corporations 1-20, Doe Defendants 1-20, Doe Governmental Agencies 1-20, and Doe Partnerships 1-20, Defendants.

No. 2011-1081.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

June 9, 2011.

Craig M. Rappel, Rappel Health Law Group, P.L., of Vero Beach, FL, argued for plaintiffs-appellants.

Before LOURIE, GAJARSA, and DYK, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is

Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
OREGON DRAIN ON ADY CANALLatitude: 42.004Longitude: -121.826Elevation: 4075.28

Oregon Drain on Ady Canal

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Lynhart Ranch Site Page...



Lynhart Ranch
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETER ANS CLAIM S

N O

. 16

- 2832

J AMES C. C HILDERS

, A PPELLANT

,

V

.

D AVID J. S HULKIN

, M.D.

, S ECRETARY OF V ETERANS A FFAIRS

, A PPELLEE

.

Before SCHOELEN

, BARTLEY , and GREENBERG

, Judges

.

O R D E R

On August 5, 2016, the appellant appealed an April 5, 2016, Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) decision. On October 2, 2017, this matter was submitted to panel for a decision. On November 1, 2017, the Secretary notified the Court that the appellant died on September 22, 2017.

On November 11, 2017, th e Cour t ordered the appellant's estate to respond and show cause as to why the appeal should not be dismissed. The Court also ordered the Secretary to respond and provide information relevant to whether there was a substitutable party in this case.

On Januar y 18, 2018, the Secretary advised the Court that VA was unaware of any eligible accrued beneficiaries and at the time of his death, the appellant was divorced and his two children were adults. Secretary's Response at 2. T he Secretary also informed the Co urt that

, although the appellant's estate had been notified of survivor benefits, VA had received no request for

subs titution

. Secretary's Response at 3. On January 24, 2018, the appellant's estate provided a copy of the appellant's death certificate, but no evidence of a substitutable party.

When an appellant dies during the pendency of an appeal for disability compensation under chapter 11 of title 38, U.S. Code, the appropriate remedy is to vacate the appealed Board decision and dismiss the appeal unless there has been an appropriate substit ution by a qualified accrued

benefits claimant. See Breedlove v. Shinseki , 24 Vet.App. 7, 21 (2010) (per curiam order); see also Padgett v. Nicholson , 473 F.3d 1364, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Accordingly, upon the death of

a veteran

- appellant, an individual who asserts he or she meets the eligibility requirements of an

accrued

- benefits claimant, 38 U.S.C. § 5121(a), may file with the Court a motion to be substituted in the appeal. See Breedlove , 24 Vet.App. at 20

- 21.

Because this appeal has become moot by virtue of the death of the appellant, and the Court

has not received a request for substitution or any other evidence of an eligible accrued beneficiary, the appeal will be dismissed. See Padgett , 473 F.3d at 1366; Breedlove , 24 Vet.App. at 20

- 21 ; Land icho , 7 Vet.App. at 53

- 54.2

Accordingly, the April 5, 2016, Board decision is VACATED with respect to the matter s appealed to the Court and the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

DATED: F e b r u a r y 1 3

, 2 0 1 8 PER CURIAM.

Copies to:

The E state of James C. Ch ilders

VA General Counsel (027)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gregory Bullock, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Felig, J.), rendered April 6, 1983, convicting him of attempted manslaughter in the first degree under indictment No. 245/82, upon his plea of guilty, and an amended judgment of the same court, also rendered April 6, 1983, convicting him of violation of probation under indictment No. 52/79, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgment and amended judgment are affirmed.

The only issue that warrants our attention on these appeals *484relates to the defendant’s motion to withdraw his pleas of guilty prior to sentencing and for leave to submit a *pro se*suppression motion. The sentencing court denied the motion on the ground that at the plea proceedings, the defendant had knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to make such a suppression motion. It is apparent from the record that the defendant was well aware that he was waiving his right to make such a motion and to appellate review thereof by pleading guilty *(see, People v Williams,*36 NY2d 829, *cert denied*423 US 873; *People v Colarusso,*103 AD2d 848). During the plea proceedings, the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights and allocuted as to the circumstances of the crime sufficiently to establish his guilt *(see, People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9). Therefore, it was not an abuse of discretion for the sentencing court to deny the defendant’s motion to withdraw his pleas of guilty *(see, People v Frederick,*45 NY2d 520; *People v Stubbs,*110 AD2d 725). Further, the defendant received the sentences he was promised *(see, People v Kazepis,*101 AD2d 816). Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Weinstein, Kunzeman and Spatt, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 8.1
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Subsidiary undertakings held directly                                       Jurisdiction of      % holding
-------------------------------------                                       incorporation      (all classes
                                                                            -------------       of shares)
                                                                                                ----------
<S>                                                                         <C>                    <C>
CeNeS Drug Delivery Limited                                                 Scotland               100%
CeNeS Pharmaceutical Limited                                                Scotland               100%
CeNeS Limited                                                               England                100%
                                                                            England
CeNeS Contract Research Limited                                                                    100%

CeNeS   Pharmaceuticals,   Inc.   (formerly   Cambridge
     NeuroScience, Inc.)                                                    Delaware
                                                                                                   100%
CeNeS (Bermuda) Limited                                                     Bermuda
                                                                                                   80.1%
Cambridge Cognition Limited                                                 England                86.9%

Cambridge Cognition Guarantee Limited                                       England                100%


Subsidiary undertakings held indirectly
Cambridge Management Dynamics Limited                                       England                100%
CeNeS  Research  Limited  (formerly  Cambridge  Cognition                   England                100%
Limited)
</TABLE>


                                        1
#### George RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellee v. CITY OF HOUSTON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-20035.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 13, 2011.

Mark L.D. Wawro, Esq., Alexander L. Kaplan, Robert S. Safi, Susman Godfrey, L.L.P., Houston, TX, Deborah L. Corn*368wall, Esq., Emma Kate Freudenberger, Esq., Anna Benvenutti Hoffmann, Esq., Barry Seheck, Neufeld, Scheck & Brustin, L.L.P., New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

David M. Feldman, Robert L. Cambrice, City of Houston Legal Department, Jonathan Griffin Brush, Richard Alan Morris, Rogers, Morris *&*Grover, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY and HAYNES, Circuit Judges, and RODRIGUEZ *, District Judge.

*

 District Judge of the Western District of Texas, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM: **

George Rodriguez sued the City of Houston under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 after his conviction for rape and kidnapping was set aside on habeas review as a result of demonstrably false serology evidence presented by the chief of the City of Houston crime lab’s serology section. Following a lengthy jury trial, the district court entered judgment on the jury verdict for Rodriguez. At the time judgment was entered, the state of the law on municipal liability for wrongfully proffered (or withheld) evidence in our circuit could be found in the affirmance by an equally divided en banc court in *Thompson v. Connick,*578 F.3d 293 (5th Cir.2009). Prior to the en banc affirmance, a panel of this court had likewise affirmed the liability of the city in that case. *Thompson v. Connick,*553 F.3d 836 (5th Cir.2008). After this case was on appeal to our court, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in *Connick v. Thompson,*— U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 1880, 176 L.Ed.2d 399 (2010), and we stayed this appeal pending the Supreme Court’s decision in that case. Thereafter, the Court reversed our court in *Connick v. Thompson,*— U.S.—, 131 S.Ct. 1350, 179 L.Ed.2d 417 (2011).

We conclude that the interests of justice counsel in favor of allowing the district court in the first instance to consider that case and apply it as appropriate to the extensive facts and evidence developed in the lengthy trial in this case. Accordingly, without determining the merits at this time, we VACATE the district court’s judgment and REMAND for consideration in light of *Connick. See Sabala v. Western Gillette, Inc.,*559 F.2d 282, 283 (5th Cir.1977); *see also Elizondo v. Parks,*254 Fed.Appx. 329, 332 (5th Cir.2007) (unpublished) (vacating the district court’s order denying qualified immunity and remanding for reconsideration in light of *Garcetti v. Ceballos,*547 U.S. 410, 126 S.Ct. 1951, 164 L.Ed.2d 689 (2006)).

**

 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.
[LOGO] Haynie & Company
       (a professional corporation)

Certerfied Public Accountants and Management Consultants
4910 Campus Drive Newport Beach, California 92660-2118 (949) 724-1880
FAX (949) 724-1889

April 12, 2000


Office of Small Business
Securities and Exchange Commission
450 5th Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Mailstop:    4-6, SEC

RE:      TMEX USA, Inc.

Dear Sir or Madam:

We  are  the  former  accountant  for  TMEX  USA,  Inc.,  a  Nevada  corporation
("Company").  We have  reviewed the  Company's  Form  10-KSB.  We agree with the
Company's disclosures in "Item 8. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants"
of Form 10-KSB regarding the change in certifying accountants.

HAYNIE & COMPANY, CPAS

/s/ David T. Shomaker

David T. Shomaker, CPA, CVA


DTS:sig
Order entered June 8 , 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 22
- 00313
- CV IN THE INTEREST OF B.J.E., A CHILD On Appeal from the 86th Judici al District Court

Kaufman C ounty, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 101893
- 86

O RDER The reporter’s record in this case has not been filed. By letter dated May 16 , 2022, we informed appellant the court reporter notified us that the reporter’s record had not been filed because appellan t had not (1) requested the record; or (2) paid for or made arrangements to pay for the record. We directed appellant to provide the Court with written verification showing the reporter’s record had been requested and that appellant had paid for or made a rr angements to pay for the record or had been fou nd entitled to proceed without payment of costs. We cautioned appellant that failure to provide the required documentation within ten days might result in the appeal being ordered submitted without the repo rt er’srecord. To date, appellant has not pro vided the Court with documentation showing

he has requested the reporter’s record, nor otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of the reporter’s record. Accordingly, we ORDER this appeal sub mi tted without a reporter’s record. Appellant ’ s brief is due THIRTY DAYS from the date of this order.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
#### Dunning *v.*Walker.

Appeal from Cleburne County Court.

Heard before the Hon. T. J. Burton.

Merrill & Bridges, for appellant.

James Aiken, for appellee.

*665Opinion by

McClellan, C. J.

This was an action of detinue, brought by the appellee against the appellant. The judgment of the trial court is shown here only by the bill of exceptions, and this court says: “On this state of the record we can not revise the rulings of the county court. It does not appear in this court by a *transcript from the record*of the trial court that any judgment was rendered, and the judgment can not be shown in any other way.”

The appeal is dismissed.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

July 9, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 07-15652

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 07-00062-CR-FTM-29SPC

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

ROGELIO PAREDES, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(July 9, 2008)

Before DUBINA, HULL and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Rogelio Paredes appeals his sentence of 41 months’ imprisonment
2

imposed after he pled guilty to illegal reentry by an alien previously deported as an

aggravated felon, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2).

On appeal, Paredes argues that the sentence imposed by the district court is

unreasonable because that court failed to give adequate weight to certain 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) factors. Specifically, Paredes states that the court should have given

more weight to evidence of (1) his cultural assimilation, (2) his hard working

nature, and (3) the fact that he had not been arrested since the birth of his daughter.

This court has previously held that “[i]t is a cardinal rule of appellate review

that a party may not challenge as error a ruling or other trial proceeding invited by

that party.” United States v. Ross, 131 F.3d 970, 988 (11th Cir. 1997) (citation

omitted). The doctrine of invited error applies to situations in which “a party

induces or invites the district court into making an error.” United States v. Stone,

139 F.3d 822, 838 (11th Cir. 1998).

Because the record demonstrates that Paredes requested, and ultimately

received, a low-end guideline sentence and because he never objected to the 41-

month sentence at the sentencing hearing, we conclude that he invited any error

that may have occurred, and may not now challenge the reasonableness of his

sentence. Accordingly, we affirm Paredes’s sentence. 

AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

_________________________________

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Complainant

vs.

SIMONE JOYCE SOLOMON

Respondent

_________________________________

Docket Number 2012-0351

Enforcement Activity No. 4405978

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF COMPLAINT, 

ENTRY OF EAJA SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND DISMISSAL OF CASE

Issued: November 10, 2016

By Administrative Law Judge: Honorable Dean C. Metry

In National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Order No. EM-2141, the NTSB 

remanded this case to the Coast Guard. The parties subsequently submitted a Joint Motion for 

Withdrawal of Complaint, Entry of EAJA Settlement Agreement and Dismissal of Case 

(Motion) on November 04, 2016.

I have carefully reviewed the terms of the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) Settlement 

Agreement and find it is fair and reasonable.

 

1 On April 4, 2016, the NTSB served an Errata correcting the NTSB Order No. from EM-213 to NTSB Order No. 

EM-214.
ORDER

Upon consideration of the record, it is hereby ORDERED the EAJA Settlement 

Agreement is APPROVED in full and incorporated herein by reference. This Order shall 

constitute full, final, and complete adjudication of this proceeding. Pursuant to the Motion and 

EAJA Settlement Agreement, this case is DISMISSED with prejudice.

__________________________________________________

Dean C. Metry

U.S. Coast Guard Administrative Law Judge

Date: 

November 10, 2016
#### Power Authority of the State of New York, Appellant, v Robert Caputo et al., Respondents. (And Two Other Related Actions.)

— Casey, J.

Appeals from that part of (1) two orders of the Supreme Court (Ingraham, J.), entered June 20, 1986 in Otsego County, and (2) an order of said court, entered June 18, 1986 in Delaware County, which, after granting plaintiffs motions for preliminary injunctions, imposed certain limitations on the activities authorized by the injunctions.

*789The limitations imposed by Supreme Court must be deleted *(Power Auth. of State of N. Y. v Potocnik,*124 AD2d 914; *Power Auth. of State of N. Y. v Bowen,*121 AD2d 840).

Orders modified, on the law and the facts, without costs, by deleting the third decretal paragraphs thereof containing three limitations, and, as so modified, affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.
#### PYNE et al. v. PHILLIPS et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 23, 1896.)

Action by Moses T. Pyne and others against Hartwig J. Phillips and others.

No opinion. Motion denied upon payment of $10 costs.
EXHIBIT 32

Certification

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section
1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of FiberNet Telecom Group, Inc., (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                   |  |  |  |                              
|------------------ |  |  |  | -----------------------------
|                   |  | 
|Date: May 15, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ Jon A. DeLuca            
|                   |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer      
|                   |  | 
|Date: May 15, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ Charles S. Wiesenhart Jr.
|                   |  |  |  | Chief Accounting Officer     

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