alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7073

JOHN JEFFRIES LISANICK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE JOHNSON, Director of VDOC, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-03-714-3) Submitted: November 15, 2004 Decided: November 30, 2004 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Jeffries Lisanick, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: John Jeffries Lisanick appeals from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition by the district court. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have reviewed the record and conclude that Lisanick has not made the requisite showing. We therefore 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
Case 2:23-cv-00211-JRG Document 10-1 Filed 09/06/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 1726
Case 2:23-cv-00211-JRG Document 10-1 Filed 09/06/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 1727
Case 2:23-cv-00211-JRG Document 10-1 Filed 09/06/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 1728
Leroy Dean DENNIS, petitioner, v. OKLAHOMA.

No. 18-5403.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
JASON K., petitioner, v. MAINE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al.

No. 17-9484.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 29, 2018.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied. Petitioner allowed until November 19, 2018, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk December 26, 2012

s1217 

# Order

December 26, 2012

145472

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 145472

COA: 302799

Calhoun CC: 2010

- 002909

- FC

DARELLEE DOMINIQUE GORDON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 22, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
John Douglas ALEXANDER, petitioner, v. Charles WILLIAMS, Jr., Warden.

No. 17-8276.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 6, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**AFFINITY GROUP, INC.**

 

**STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

I,Thomas F. Wolfe, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of AffinityGroup, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), hereby certify asfollows:

 

1.             This statement is provided pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350 in connection with the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008 (the “Periodic Report”);

 

2.             The Periodic Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

3.             The information contained in the PeriodicReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company as of dates and for the periods indicatedtherein.

 

 

Date:  August 8, 2008

 

 
|   |   /s/  Thomas F. Wolfe |
|--------|----------------------------------|
|   |   Thomas F. Wolfe           |
|   |   Senior Vice President and |
|   |   Chief Financial Officer   |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906, or suchother document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thewritten statement as required by Section 906, has been provided toAffinity Group, Inc. and will be retained by Affinity Group, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Anheuser

- Busch, L.L.C. v. Harris County Tax Assessor

- Collector

Appellate case number: 01

- 15

- 00422

- CV

Trial court case number: 2013

- 72388

Trial court: 55th Distri ct Court of Harris County

Appellant’s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is GRANTED

.

The District Clerk is ORDERED to file a supplemental record including the summary

judgment exhibits previously requested by appellant within 10 days o f the date of this order.

Appellant’s brief will be due within 30 days after the date the supplemental record is filed

in this Court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38.6(a).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Rebeca Huddle

 Acting i ndividually  Acting for the Court

Date: July 7, 2015
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT

**DAVID D. RICHARDSON, Appellant** 

**v.**

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,**  **JOHN E. WETZEL, SECRETARY, Appellee**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **No. 29 WAP 2014 Appeal from the Order of the**  **Commonwealth Court entered July 30, 2014, at No. 114 CD 2014.** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 17th day of February, 2015, the Order of the Commonwealth**  **Court is hereby** AFFIRMED

**.**
Exhibit
      32.1








**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 of Medifast, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q
      for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I Bradley T. MacDonald,
      Chief Executive Officer of the Company and I Michael S. McDevitt, Chief
      Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my
      knowledge, that:





|(1) | The
              Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
              of
              the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
              and
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




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







By:
            /s/
              Bradley T. MacDonaldBradley T. MacDonaldChief Executive OfficerNovember 14, 2006





By:
              /s/
                Michael S. McDevittMichael S. McDevittChief Executive OfficerNovember 14, 2006
# United States Court of Appeals **for the Fifth Circuit**

No. 21-20598 Summary Calendar

Kevin Connors,

Plaintiff—Appellant ,

versus

Doctor Edgar Halupis; Terry Speer,

Defendants—Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:17-CV-1512

Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Plaintiff-Appellant Kevin Connors, Texas prisoner # 1284939, appeals the dismissal of his claims against Defendants-Appellees Edgar Halupis and Terry Speer for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amend ment. Connors has waived his claims against Speer by failing to brief them on appeal, so we discus s only his claims

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 22, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-20598 Document: 00516588403 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/22/2022No. 21-20598

2 against Halupis. See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). We review the grant of a motion for summary judgment de novo. See Xtreme Lashes, LLC v. Xtended Beauty, Inc ., 576 F.3d 221, 226 (5th Cir. 2009). “A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishmen t when his conduct demonstrates deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s se rious medical needs, constituting an unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Easter v. Powell , 467 F.3d 459, 463 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To state an Eighth Amendment violation, a pr isoner must show both “objective exposure to a substantial risk of se rious harm” and “that prison officials acted or failed to act with deliberate indifference to that risk.” Gobert v. Caldwell , 463 F.3d 339, 345-46 (5th Cir. 2006). Absent exceptional circumstances, neither unsuccessfu l medical treatment nor disagreement with medical treatment or decisions wh ether to provide additional treatment constitute deliberate indifference. See id. at 346. At most, Connors’s claims amou nt to disagreements about his medical treatment, negligence, or medical malpractice, which do not constitute deliberate indifference. See id . The record indicates that Halupis was aware of Connors’s need for a low residue diet, but he believed that the Texas Department of Criminal Justice’ s normal diet was low residue and sufficient for Connors’s needs. The record also indi cates that, while compliance was inconsistent, Connors wa s consistently prescribed a formula supplement. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED

. Case: 21-20598 Document: 00516588403 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/22/2022
American Dream Entertainment, Inc.
                 (f/k/a Federal Affordable Housing Corporation)

                  Computation of Income (Loss) Per Common Share
                                   (Unaudited)





                                              For the Three Months Ended
                                                       August 31,
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                               1999                   1998
                                       ------------------     ------------------


Shares  outstanding:                          17,980,000                493,500
Weighted average shares outstanding           17,980,000                493,500
Net income (loss)                     $         (130,539)  $              1,975

Net income (loss) per common share    $            (0.01)  $               0.00
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, dba 

VIVATO TECHNOLOGIES,

Plaintiff,

v.

AT&T SERVICES INC.; AT&T MOBILITY 

LLC; and AT&T CORP.,

Defendants,

NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION and 

ERICSSON INC.,

Intervenors.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP

(Lead Case)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, dba 

VIVATO TECHNOLOGIES,

Plaintiff,

v.

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC., 

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON 

WIRELESS,

Defendants,

NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION and 

ERICSSON INC.,

Intervenors.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00203-JRG-RSP

(Member Case)

XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, dba 

VIVATO TECHNOLOGIES,

Plaintiff,

v.

T-MOBILE USA, INC.,

Defendant,

NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION and 

ERICSSON INC.,

Intervenors.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00204-JRG-RSP

(Member Case)

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 83-1 Filed 07/29/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 2115
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’/INTERVENORS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO 

WITHDRAW OPPOSED MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS 

PENDING INTER PARTES REVIEW

Before the Court is Defendants’/Intervenors’ Motion to Withdraw their pending Motion to 

Stay Proceedings Pending Inter Partes Review (“Motion”). Dkt. 78. The Court finds that 

Defendants’/Intervenors’ Motion is hereby GRANTED. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 83-1 Filed 07/29/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 2116
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

SHERMAN DIVISION

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. 

ELIZABETH HARRIS-DAVIS

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CASE NUMBER 4:23-CR-00189

ORDER ADOPTING UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 

REPORT AND FINDING DEFENDANT GUILTY

The Court referred this matter to the United States Magistrate Judge for administration 

of a guilty plea under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. The Magistrate Judge 

conducted a hearing in the form and manner prescribed by Rule 11 and issued Findings of 

Fact and Recommendation on Guilty Plea. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court 

accept Defendant’s guilty plea and adjudge Defendant guilty on Count One of the Indictment.

The parties have not objected to the Magistrate Judge’s findings. 

The Court hereby ADOPTS the Findings of Fact and Recommendation on Guilty Plea 

of the United States Magistrate Judge. The Court also accepts Defendant’s plea but defers 

acceptance of the plea agreement until after review of the presentence report. 

In accordance with Defendant’s guilty plea, the Court finds Defendant Elizabeth 

Harris-davi GUILTY of Count One of the Indictment, charging a violation of Title 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1708 – Possession of Stolen Mail.

Case 4:23-cr-00189-ALM-BD Document 27 Filed 09/13/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 62
Consent of Independent Auditors
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                  
    The Board of Directors
    Electronic Fab Technology Corp.:
    
    We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
    statements (Nos. 33-77938 and 33-92418) on Form S-8 of Electronic Fab
    Technology Corp. of our report dated January 20, 1997, except as to note
    12, which is as of February 24, 1997, relating to the balance sheets of
    Electronic Fab Technology Corp. as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and the
    related statements of operations, shareholders' equity, and cash flows for
    each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1996, which
    report appears in the 1996 annual report on Form 10-K of Electronic Fab
    Technology Corp.
    
    
                                   KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
    
    
    Denver, Colorado
    March 24, 1997
Clyde RETIZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6920.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
(A) THE COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF
OPERATIONS FOR ITS FISCAL QUARTER ENDED DECEMBER 29, 1996, AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B) FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-29-1996
<CASH>                                         982,895
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  164,592
<ALLOWANCES>                                    15,500
<INVENTORY>                                    248,226
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,005,463
<PP&E>                                       2,145,171
<DEPRECIATION>                                  76,749
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,804,666
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,825,638
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,979,028
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,804,666
<SALES>                                        711,055
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               888,921
<CGS>                                        1,066,761
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,118,147
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                31,664
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               424,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              36,558
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (229,226)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (260,890)
<DISCONTINUED>                               (969,057)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,229,947)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.17)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
     BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
     BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                         3,834,141
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  11,879,811
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,140,462)
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               16,138,571
<PP&E>                                         28,863,331
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,812,674)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 61,004,139
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          8,133,067
<BONDS>                                        23,701,844
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       76,202
<OTHER-SE>                                     27,350,414
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   61,004,139
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               12,568,109
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  9,490,081
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               494,534
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             692,989
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,929,072
<INCOME-TAX>                                   713,341
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,031,562
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,031,562
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .10
        

</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as                           ( print page 32032)                        amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.                

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health Special Emphasis Panel; Exploratory Clinical Trials of Mind and Body Interventions (MB).                    

*Date:*                         June 21-22, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Center for Complementary and Integrative, Democracy II, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Sushmita Purkayastha, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review, Division of Extramural Activities, NCCIH/NIH, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 401, Bethesda, MD 20892-5475,                         *sushmita.purkayastha@nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.213, Research and Training in Complementary and Alternative Medicine, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: May 23, 2022.

Victoria E. Townsend,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-11340 Filed 5-25-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
J. Cruz RAMIREZ-BARAJAS, petitioner, v. Matthew G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General

Daniel Oginga Onduso, petitioner, v. Matthew G. Whitaker, Acting Attorney General.

No. 18-78.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 19, 2018.

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