alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7177

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus MARK ANTHONY WILLIAMS, a/k/a Michael Nemhardt, a/k/a Alex Cruz, a/k/a Smiley, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-97-142) Submitted: February 24, 2006 Decided: March 27, 2006 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark Anthony Williams, Appellant Pro Se. John Samuel Bowler, Assistant United States Attorney, Steve R. Matheny, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* To the extent Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s April 19, 2005 order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, his notice of appeal is untimely. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Mark Anthony Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), seeking to reopen his motion also filed under Rule 60(b) to reconsider his se ntence of life imprisonment based on the decisions in United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005); United States v. Blakely , 542 U.S. 296 (2004); and Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). * The order, which derives from the denial of a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); seeReid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have- 3 - independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williams has not made the requisite showing. 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Fulton Bancshares Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending March 31,2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, David W. Cathell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

(2) The information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: June 2, 2005 | By:                                                | /s/David W.  Cathell |   |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------|----------------------|--------|
|               | David W.  Cathell ,                                |
|               | Senior Vice  President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
#### Crystal Monique LIGHTFOOT; Beverly Ann Hollis-Arrington, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. CENDANT MORTGAGE CORPORATION, doing business as PHH Mortgage; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 10-56068.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.*

Filed Jan. 9, 2012.

Crystal Monique Lightfoot, West Hills, CA, pro se.

Beverly Ann Hollis-Arrington, West Hills, CA, pro se.

Jan T. Chilton, Severson & Werson, San Francisco, CA, Suzanne M. Hankins, Esquire, Severson and Werson, Irvine, CA, Ralph C. Shelton, II, Schiff & Shelton, *669Newport Beach, CA, for Defendants-Ap-pellees.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Crystal Monique Lightfoot and Beverly Ann Hollis-Arrington appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action arising out of foreclosure proceedings as barred by the doctrine of res judicata, and from the order denying their motion to set aside the judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of a Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion. *Casey v. Albertson’s Inc.,*362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir.2004). We review de novo a district court’s determination regarding removal jurisdiction. *Providence Health Plan v. McDowell,*385 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir.2004). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. *Thompson v. Paul,*547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir.2008). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiffs’ Rule 60(b) motion to set aside the judgment because plaintiffs failed to establish any ground for relief. *See Casey,*362 F.3d at 1260 (discussing requirements of Rule 60(b)(3), including that the alleged fraud “not be discoverable by due diligence before or during the proceedings” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); *see also Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co.,*452 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir.2006) (while “‘fraud on the court’ can sometimes constitute extraordinary circumstances meriting relief under Rule 60(b)(6),” such relief is construed narrowly).

The district court had removal jurisdiction because state claims filed to circumvent the res judicata impact of a federal judgment may be removed to federal court. *See Ultramar Am. Ltd. v. Dwelle,*900 F.2d 1412, 1417 (9th Cir.1990) (“When a litigant has suffered a final defeat on a federal claim yet thereafter files a similar-although-not-preempted state claim in state court, the sequence of events gives rise to an inference that the litigant is not interested in the state cause of action per se, but is instead attempting to circumvent the effects of the federal question judgment. In this limited instance, removal is allowed.”).

Plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is denied. Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice is granted.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rodolfo Santiago PEREZ-RIVERA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-40897

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 22, 2010.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Sarah Beth Landau, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Molly Estelle Odom, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Rodolfo Santiago Perez-Rivera has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Perez-Rivera has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. 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.

*

 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.
1 Cite as: 573 U. S. ____ (2014)

Statement of A LITO

, J.



## SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

MOUNT SOLEDAD MEMORIAL ASSOCIATION v. STEVE TRUNK, ET AL

.

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT

No. 13–1061. Decided June 30, 2014

The petition for a writ of ce rtiorari before judgment is
denied.

Statement of J USTICE A LITO respecting the denial of the petition for a writ of ce rtiorari before judgment.
This case came before us two years ago, see 567 U. S. ___ (2012), and at that time I issued a statement respect

ing the denial of certiorari. I noted that although the “Court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence is undoubt

edly in need of clarity,” certiorari was not yet warranted in this case “[b]ecause no final judgment has been rendered and it remains unclear precisely what action the Federal
Government will be re quired to take.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 2, 3). Since that time, the District Court has issued an order requiring the memorial to be removed, but it has stayed that order pending appeal. The Court of Appeals has not yet reviewed that order on appeal. Seeking to bypass that step, petitioner seeks certiorari before judgment. In my view, it has not met the very demanding standard we require in order to grant certiorari at that stage. In light of the stay, any review by this Court can await the deci

sion of the Court of Appeals. I therefore agree with the Court’s decision to deny the petition.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 7662** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. RAUL CASTILLO RAMOS , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Distric t of Maryland , at Greenbelt
. Alexander Williams, Jr. , District Judge. ( 8:04

- cr - 00293

- AW

- 1; 8:07

- cv - 02982

- AW )

Submitted : February 18, 2010 Decided: February 24, 2010

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Raul Castillo Ramos, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Richard Pauze, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Raul Castillo Ramos se eks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2009 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability . 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable ju rists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);
Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683

- 84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ramos has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismi ss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 21


                  SUBSIDIARIES OF TAYLOR INVESTMENT CORPORATION

                                            JURISDICTION OF             PERCENT
NAME                                         INCORPORATION               OWNED

Four Seasons Realty of Minnesota, Inc.        Minnesota                  100%

Four Seasons Realty of Wisconsin, Inc.        Wisconsin                  100%

Four Seasons Properties of Georgia, LLC       Georgia                    100%

Four Seasons Properties of Tennessee, LLC     Minnesota                  100%

FSP Development of Texas, LLC                 Texas                      100%

Four Seasons Realty of Michigan, Inc.         Michigan                   100%

Laurentian Development Corporation            Minnesota                  100%

Lakeridge Community Center, LLC               Minnesota                  67%











                                       38
Carl Alonzo BROOKS, petitioner, v. Joanne Y. MAIDA, et al.

No. 16-6166.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 14, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 21

           Principal Subsidiaries of Global Payment Technologies, Inc.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                Jurisdiction            Percentage Ownership
                  Name of Subsidiary                            Incorporation            by the Registrant
--------------------------------------------------------        -------------            -----------------
<S>                                                            <C>                             <C>
Global Payment Technology Holdings (Proprietary) Limited        South Africa                   24.2%

International Payment Systems Pty Ltd.                          South Africa                     30%


Global Payment Technologies Australia Pty. Ltd.                   Australia                      50%

Ecash Management Pty. Ltd.                                        Australia                      35%

Global Payment Technologies (Europe) Limited                   United Kingdom                   100%

Abacus Financial Management Systems Limited                    United Kingdom                    25%

Abacus Financial Management Systems Ltd., USA                   United States                    80%
</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Antonio R. AZPEITIA, Appellant.

No. 09-3774.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: June 29, 2010.

Filed: July 9, 2010.

Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Omaha, NE, for Appellee.

Antonio R. Azpeitia, Omaha, NE, pro se.

Julie A. Frank, Frank & Gryva, Omaha, NE, for Appellant.

*589Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to a written plea agreement containing a waiver of his right to appeal, Antonio Azpeitia pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 5 grams or more of (actual) methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) & (b)(1). The district court1 sentenced Azpeitia to 140 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release. On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). The government has moved to dismiss the appeal.

We will enforce the appeal waiver in this case because Azpeitia’s appeal falls within the scope of the waiver, the record shows the requisite knowledge and voluntariness, and enforcing the appeal waiver would not constitute a miscarriage of justice. *See United States v. Andis,*333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir.2003) (en banc) (court should enforce appeal waiver and dismiss appeal where it falls within scope of waiver, both plea agreement and waiver were entered into knowingly and voluntarily, and no miscarriage of justice would result; one important way district court can ensure plea agreement and appeal waiver are knowing and voluntary is to question defendant properly about decision to enter agreement and to waive right to appeal); *see also United States v. Estrada-Bahena,*201 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th Cir.2000) (per curiam) (enforcing appeal waiver in *An-ders*case).

Having independently reviewed the record under *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues not covered by the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we grant the government’s motion to dismiss this appeal.

1

. The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 117 (Monday, June 18, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 32836]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15278]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service


Notice of Extension for Public Scoping Comments for the 
Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed 
Exchange of Lands With Federal Interest on South Fox Island, Leelanau 
County, MI, Between the State of Michigan and a Private Citizen

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior, lead; National Park 
Service, Interior, cooperating; Michigan Department of Natural 
Resources, cooperating.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement; 
extension of comment period.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document announces an extension of the comment period for 
an additional 30 days to allow further participation in the scoping 
process.
    For additional information, the original announcement regarding the 
notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement was 
published in the Federal Register on May 16, 2001, beginning on page 
27154. Copies of the document can be obtained by contacting the 
individuals listed in the original announcement.
    The notice of intent and supplementary information can also be 
viewed via the internet at http://midwest.fws.gov/nepa

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before COB July 15, 
2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For the various agencies, the contacts 
are: Mr. Craig A. Czarnecki, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, East 
Lansing Field Office, 2651 Coolidge Road, Suite 101, East Lansing, MI 
48823, telephone: (517) 351-8470, facsimile: (517) 351-1443; or Mr. Jon 
Parker, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Federal Aid, Bishop 
Henry Whipple Building, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, MN 55111; 
telephone: (612) 713-5142, facsimile: (612) 713-5290; Ms. Elyse 
LaForest, National Park Service, 15 State Street, Boston, MA 02109, 
telephone: (617) 223-5190, facsimile: (617) 223-5164; Mr. Doug 
Erickson, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division, 
P.O. Box 30444, Lansing, MI 48909-7944; telephone: (517) 335-4316, 
facsimile: (517) 373-6705.

William F. Hartwig,
Regional Director, Region 3, Fort Snelling, Minnesota.
[FR Doc. 01-15278 Filed 6-15-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
<PAGE>


                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.12

                                   AMENDMENT NO. 4
                               TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


    THIS AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the "Amendment") is made and
entered into at Santa Barbara, California, on the date hereinafter set forth by
and between GARY S. KLEDZIK, PH.D. (hereinafter referred to as the "Employee")
and PDT, INC., a Delaware Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the
"Employer").

WHEREAS:

    A.   The Employer and the Employee are parties to an Employment Agreement
effective as of  DECEMBER 31, 1989, and Amendments No. 1 through 3 thereto (the
"Employment Agreement").

    B.   The parties hereto wish to amend the Employment Agreement in certain
respects.

    NOW, THEREFORE,  in consideration of the premises, promises and
representations hereinafter contained, it is agreed as follows:

    1.   Section 1.1 Of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended to read as
follows:

         "1.1  POSITION AND DUTIES
               The Corporation does hereby employ the Employee and the Employee
hereby accepts such employment as CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER upon the
terms and provisions set forth in this Agreement.  The Employee shall perform
all the duties assigned to him by the Corporation, shall observe and comply with
the Corporation's rules and regulations regarding the performance of his duties,
and shall carry out and perform all orders, directions, and policies stated to
him by the Corporation periodically, either orally or in writing.  The Employee
shall carry out the duties assigned to him in a trustworthy, businesslike, and
loyal manner.  The Employee agrees that this Agreement may be terminated as
provided in Paragraph 7 hereof."

    2.   In all other respects, the Employment Agreement is hereby ratified,
confirmed and approved in its entirety.

    3.   The Effective Date of this Amendment is MAY 17, 1996.

                             EMPLOYER:
                             PDT, INC.
                             a Delaware Corporation
                             By: /s/ David E. Mai
                                 -------------------------------
                                     David E. Mai
                                     President


                             EMPLOYEE:

                             /s/ Gary S. Kledzik
                             -----------------------------------
                             Gary S. Kledzik, Ph.D.

                                         Amendment No. 4 to Employment Agreement


                                                                         Page-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 Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2010 (the “Report”) of Teche Holding Company (the “Company”) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, we, Patrick O. Little, President and Chief Executive Officer, and J. L. Chauvin, Senior Vice President and Treasurer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ‘1350, as adopted pursuant to ‘906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)           The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








/s/ Patrick O. Little


/s/ J.L. ChauvinPatrick O. Little

President and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)


J.L. Chauvin

Senior Vice President and Treasurer

Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)





December 17, 2010
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: ROBERT E. O'GRADY 

DOCKET NUMBER: 184 

DATE: NOVEMBER 22, 1971 

DOCUMENT TYPE: CEASE AND DESIST ORDER 

Docket No. 184 

Name: Robert E. O'Grady 

Effective On or about November 22, 1971 

Effective upon the date of service of this order upon respondents Robert E. 

O'Grady, Carl D. Leaven, Leonard B. Feldman and Time Trading Co., they shall 

cease and desist from: (1) entering into, or offering to enter into, any futures 

transaction subject to the Commodity Exchange Act if such transaction is, is of 

the character of, or is commonly known to the trade as, a "wash sale"; and (2) 

executing any futures transaction subject to the Commodity Exchange Act if such 

transaction is not executed openly and competitively in accordance with section 

1.38 of the regulations issued under the Commodity Exchange Act (17 CFR 1.38). 

Done at Washington, D. C. 

NOV 18 1971 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

Thomas J. Flavin 

Judicial Officer 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2 
Page 3