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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1826 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1826

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
             coastwise trade for the vessel THE ENTERPRIZE.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 14, 1999

Mr. Young of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred 
         to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
             coastwise trade for the vessel THE ENTERPRIZE.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding 
section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), 
section 8 of the Act of June 19, 1886 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and section 
12106 of title 46, United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation 
may issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement 
for employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel THE ENTERPRIZE 
(United States official number 1077571).
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME C OURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA Supreme Court Cause No. DA 2 3

- 0273

STATE OF MO NTANA

,

Plaintiff and Appellee

,

v.

ZACKARY MATTHEW MAAS

,

Defendant and Appellant

.

ORDER GRANTING SXITH E XTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

APPELLANT ’ S OPENING BRIEF

Upon co n sideration of Appellant ’ s motion for a s ixth extension of time to

file his o pening brief , an d good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of

time to and including March 22 , 2024 withi n which to file his o p ening brief

.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 20 2024

02/20/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0273
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEFFINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Kay L. Toolson,CEO of Monaco Coach Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that theQuarterly Report of Monaco Coach Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarterlyperiod ended July 2, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the informationcontained in such Quarterly Report of Monaco Coach Corporation on Form 10-Qfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of Monaco Coach Corporation.

 

 
|   | By:                     | /s/ Kay L. Toolson |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------------------|--------|
|   | Kay L. Toolson          |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

I, P. MartinDaley, CFO of Monaco Coach Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that the Quarterly Report of Monaco Coach Corporation on Form 10-Q for thequarterly period ended July 2, 2005 fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that theinformation contained in such Quarterly Report of Monaco Coach Corporation onForm 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of Monaco Coach Corporation.

 

 
|   | By:    | /s/ P. Martin Daley     |   |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   |   | P. Martin Daley         |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

A signed original of these written statements requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Monaco Coach Corporation and will beretained by Monaco Coach Corporation and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
Charles Vernon HARRIS, Jr., petitioner, v. Dewayne ESTES, Warden, et al.

No. 18-5227.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

L2 MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. 

ONEPLUS TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) 

CO., LTD., 

Defendant.

Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-00087

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AND DESIGNATION OF LEAD COUNSEL

Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney, Timothy P. Maloney, of the law firm 

Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP, is appearing as lead counsel for Plaintiff L2 Mobile 

Technologies LLC in the above-referenced matter. Timothy P. Maloney is a member in good 

standing of the bar of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and may 

receive all communications from the Court and from other parties at the address below.

Date: March 1, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Timothy P. Maloney 

Timothy P. Maloney (IL 6216483)

Joseph F. Marinelli (IL 6270210) 

Alvaro Cure Dominguez (IL 6343312)

FITCH, EVEN, TABIN & FLANNERY LLP

120 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2100 

Chicago, Illinois 60603 

(312) 577-7000

tim@fitcheven.com

jmarinelli@fitcheven.com

acure@fitcheven.com

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 2:23-cv-00087-JRG Document 3 Filed 03/01/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 368
EXHIBIT 32.2

                   Certification of Periodic Financial Report
                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


     In connection with Amendment No. 4 to the Annual Report of Extensions, Inc.
(the  "Company")  on  Form 10-K, for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed
with  the  Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, BB Tuley, the chief financial officer of the company hereby certify as of the
date  hereof, solely for purposes of 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:


     (i)  the Annual Report on Form 10-K, of the Company for the year ended
          December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
          Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") 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 the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


Date:  October 7, 2009

/s/  BB  Tuley
--------------
BB  Tuley
Principal  Financial  Officer
```
 
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 01/24/12                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:      151,622
COMMITMENTS
  25,096   42,845   39,257   79,472   66,129  143,825  148,231    7,797    3,391

CHANGES FROM 01/17/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     -2,679)
  11,104   11,548    5,944   -4,463   -4,540   12,585   12,952  -15,264  -15,631

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    16.6     28.3     25.9     52.4     43.6     94.9     97.8      5.1      2.2

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       78)
      28       21       26       23       21       63       58
```

----

Updated January 27, 2012
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-40358

Conference Calendar

 

RAUL DIAZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM F. WOODS, WARDEN,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-95-CV-490

- - - - - - - - - -

October 23, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Raul Diaz appeals the dismissal of his petition for habeas

corpus, which he filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Attacks on

the validity of a conviction must be brought under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255, not § 2241, and such claims may be adjudicated only in

the district in which the prisoner was sentenced. Broussard v.

Lippman, 643 F.2d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 452 U.S.
No. 96-40358

- 2 -

920 (1981). See also, Cox v. Warden, Federal Detention Ctr., 911

F.2d 1111, 1113 (5th Cir. 1990). The sentencing court in this

case was the District Court for the Western District of Texas,

but Diaz filed his habeas petition in the District Court for the

Southern District of Texas. Appellant’s prior unsuccessful

motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which he filed in the proper

forum, does not entitled him to seek relief under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241. McGhee v. Hanberry, 604 F.2d 9, 10 (5th Cir. 1979). The

district court did not err in dismissing Diaz’s petition. 

This appeal is frivolous. We caution Diaz that any

additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the

imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Diaz is further

cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do

not raise arguments that are frivolous. 

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
```
  
 
WHEAT - MINNEAPOLIS GRAIN EXCHANGE                                   Code-001626
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 08/23/11          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:       49,182
COMMITMENTS
  10,974    1,098    6,734   17,679   30,140   35,387   37,972   13,795   11,210

CHANGES FROM 08/16/11 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     -2,428)
    -395   -1,098     -492   -3,092   -1,138   -3,979   -2,728    1,551      300

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    22.3      2.2     13.7     35.9     61.3     72.0     77.2     28.0     22.8

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       64)
      18        7       16       33       22       58       41
```

----

Updated August 26, 2011
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 8 D0 10 1 . SAMUEL FRANK COOPER v

. AMANDA KAY COOPER.

Sam u el Fran k Co o per (“ Hu s b an d ”) an d Am an d a Kay Co o p er (“ W i fe”) were d i v o rced i n 2 01 5

. On Ju l y 7

, 2 0 1 7

, Hu s b an d was fo u n d i n co n t em p t fo r fai l i n g t o p ay

at t o rn ey fees , as wel l as t o faci l i t at e an d al l o w t h e sal e o f t h e p art i es ’ s eco n d h o m e. Aft er Hu s b an d fai l ed to d o s o , W i fe m ov ed fo r t h e ap p o in t m en t o f a t h ird p a r t y to
effect u at e t h e t erm s o f t h e co nt em p t o rd er p u rs uan t t o OCGA § 9 -1 1 -7 0

. On Au g u s t
1 1

, 2 0 17

, t h e t ri al co u rt g ran t ed t h e m ot i o n, an d on Sep t em ber 1 4

, 2 0 1 7

, Hu s b an d

fi led th i s ap p li cat i o n fo r d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal . W e, h o wev er, l ack ju ri s d i ct i o n

. To b e t i m el y , a d i s cret i o n ary ap p l i cat io n m u s t b e fi l ed wi t h i n 3 0 d ay s o f en t ry

o f th e o rd er s o u g h t t o b e ap p eal ed

. OCGA § 5-6 -3 5 (d ). Th e req u i rem en t s o f OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 are ju ri s d i ct i o n al

, an d t h i s Co u rt can n o t accep t an ap pl i cat i o n fo r ap p eal n ot

m ad e i n co m

p l i an ce t h erewi t h

. Bo

yl e v. S t a t e , 1 9 0 Ga. Ap p

. 7 3 4

, 7 3 4 (3 8 0 SE2 d 5 7 ) (1 9 8 9). Here, i n o rd er to be t i m el y , Hu s b an d ’ s ap p l i cat i o n sh o ul d hav e b een fi l ed o n M o n day

, Sep t em

ber 1 1

, 2 0 1 7

. Ho wev er, th i s Co u rt was cl o s e d o n M o n d ay , Sep tem b er 1 1 an d Tu es d ay , Sep t em b er 1 2, 20 1 7 d u e to in cl em en t w e a t h er. Th u s , Hu s ban d h ad u n t i l W ed n es day

, Sep tem ber 1 3

, 2 0 1 7 t o fi l e h i s ap p l i cat i on , wh i ch h e d i d n o t d o

. 1 Acco rd i n g l y , Hu s b an d ’ s ap p l i cat i o n i s h ereb y DISM ISSED fo r l ack o f ju ri s d i ct i o n

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e
, A t la n t a
,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

.

1 Al t h o u g h Hu s b an d at t em p t ed t o fi l e h is ap p l i cat i on earl i er, th o se fi l in g s were d ecl i ned fo r h i s fai l u re t o fo l l o w t h i s Co urt ’ s ru l es

. October 04, 2017

10/04/2017
Erdal ASLAN, petitioner, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security.

No. 18-8350.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Justice GORSUCH took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
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. 09-30825

Summary Calendar

KELVIN WELLS,

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

DOUG WELBORN, Clerk of Court, 19th JDC,

Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:09-CV-468

Before KING, STEWART, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff –appellant Kelvin Wells, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,

appeals the district court’s dismissal of his Fourteenth Amendment due process

and equal protection claims. Wells alleged that the appellee, a Louisiana clerk

of court, improperly processed his various petitions for relief. The district court

dismissed Wells’s claims with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e),

determining that Wells failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 4, 2010

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

Case: 09-30825 Document: 00511020585 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/04/2010
No. 09-30825

2

In his briefing to this court, Wells fails to identify any error in the district

court’s dismissal of his claims. Instead Wells merely reiterates factual

allegations and generalized statements of the law. “Although we liberally

construe briefs of pro se litigants and apply less stringent standards to parties

proceeding pro se . . . , pro se parties must still brief the issues and reasonably

comply with the standards of Rule 28.” Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th

Cir.1995). See also FED. R. APP. P. 28 (requiring an appellant’s brief to contain,

among other things, a statement of the issues and an argument); United States

v. Wilkes, 20 F.3d 651, 653 (5th Cir. 1994) (“[P]ro se litigants, like all other

parties, must abide by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.”). 

Because Wells fails to properly argue or present issues in his appellate

brief, we consider those issues to be abandoned. United States v. Beaumont, 972

F.2d 553, 563 (5th Cir. 1992); Price v. Digital Equip. Corp., 846 F.2d 1026, 1028

(5th Cir. 1988) (“[A]rguments must be briefed to be preserved.”). Because Wells

has abandoned all issues on appeal, Wells’s appeal is without arguable merit and

is thus frivolous. See Newsome v. EEOC, 301 F.3d 227, 233 (5th Cir. 2002).

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

DISMISSED. 

Case: 09-30825 Document: 00511020585 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/04/2010
Justin Cole MILAM, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-8623.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 3(i)
                              ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT
                                     TO THE
                            ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                                 QPQ CORPORATION

      The undersigned, being a natural person competent to contract, does hereby
make,  subscribe  and  file  the  Articles  of  Amendment  to  the  Articles  of
Incorporation  of  QPQ  Corporation,  a  Florida  corporation  (the  "Company"),
pursuant to Sections  607.1003 and 607.0704 of the Florida Business  Corporation
Act:

            1.    The name of the Company is QPQ Corporation.

            2.    The text of the  amendment  adopted by the Board of  Directors
and a  majority  of the  holders of the  outstanding  voting  securities  of the
Company on October  28,  1997,  which such votes cast for the  amendment  by the
shareholders was sufficient for approval, is as follows:

            RESOLVED,  that the name of the  Company be and hereby is changed to
Regenesis holdings, Inc.; and be it

            FURTHER RESOLVED, that the President of the Company be and hereby is
authorized and directed to execute and file Articles of Amendment reflecting the
foregoing  action and to take such  other acts or actions as he deems  necessary
and appropriate to effect the foregoing.


            3.    The foregoing  amendment was duly adopted by unanimous written
consent of the Board of Directors on October 28, 1997 and by written  consent of
the holders of a majority of the issued and outstanding voting securities of the
Company.

         IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  this  Articles of  Amendment  to the  Articles of
Incorporation has been executed on the 28th day of October, 1997.



                                         QPQ CORPORATION


                                         By: /s/ C. Lawrence Rutstein
                                            --------------------------  
                                                 C. Lawrence Rutstein,
                                                 President
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors 

Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-45330, 333-45332, 333-62894, 333-86350,333-135398, and 333-160329) and on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-112542, 333-136023, 333-160983, 333-166481, and 333-167498) of Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of our report dated March 15, 2011, with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of ArenaPharmaceuticals, Inc. and subsidiaries (the Company) as of December 31, 2010, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and comprehensive loss, and cash flows for the year then ended, and the effectivenessof internal control over financial reporting of Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2010, which reports appear in the December 31, 2010 annual report on Form 10-K of Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 

Our report on the consolidated financial statements refers to a change in the Company’s method of accounting for certain warrantsdue to the adoption of a new accounting pronouncement in 2009. 

/s/    KPMG LLP

San Diego, California 

March 15, 2011
```

```

----

Updated May 13, 2010
Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Wigwam Development, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steven Grauer,
Chief Executive Officer 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:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
     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 result of operations of the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of 10th
day of September 2003.

/s/ Steven Grauer
---------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 6323** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. REGINALD MIMMS, a/k/a Gerald King , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court f or the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke
. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. ( 7:99

- cr - 00048

- jct; 7:00

- cr - 00022

- jct )

Submitted : July 19, 2010 Decided: August 5 , 2010

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un publis hed per curiam opinion
. Reginald Mimms, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph W. H. Mott, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Reginald Mimms seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion for a writ of audita querela , pursuant to the All Writ s Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (2006 ). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the di strict court ’s order
. *

AFFIRMED See United States v. Mimms , No s . 7:99

- cr - 00048

- jct; 7:00

- cr - 00022

- jct ( W.D. Va.
Mar. 17 , 200 9 ) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and a rgument would not aid the decisional process.

* Although the court previously affirmed the district court’s order in United States v. Mimms , 333 F. App’x 793 (4th Cir. Oct. 19, 2009) (No. 09

- 6633) (unpublished) , this court’s opinion and order fail ed to refer to one of the underlying criminal matters in which the district court’s order was filed. Accordingly, this per curiam opinion refers to both underlying criminal matters
.