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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6729

MUHAMMAD WALIYULLAH KARIM ABDUL QADIR,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION; RICHARD ROLLINGS,

Jailor; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of

the State of South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.

(CA-00-733-3-19BC)

Submitted: August 23, 2001 Decided: August 30, 2001

Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Muhammad Waliyullah Karim Abdul Qadir, Appellant Pro Se. Donald

John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Muhammad Qadir appeals the district court’s order adopting the

magistrate judge’s recommendation that his petition for a writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West Supp. 2000) be

dismissed. However, Qadir’s notice of appeal of the district

court’s February 20, 2001 order was not filed until April 20, 2001,

outside the thirty-day period contemplated by Fed. R. App. P.

4(a)(1). Additionally, although Qadir filed a motion styled as a

motion for reconsideration on March 15, 2001, that motion was filed

after the March 9, 2001 deadline for filing a motion under Fed. R.

App. P. 59(e), which would have tolled the appeal period. See Fed.

R. App. P. 4(a)(4); Panhorst v. United States, 241 F.3d 367, 370

(4th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, we dismiss Qadir’s appeal as to the

district court’s order dismissing his § 2254 petition as untimely.

See id. at 369-70 (citing Browder v. Director, Dept of Corr., 434

U.S. 257, 264 (1978) for the proposition that observation of Rule

4’s requirements is both “mandatory and jurisdictional”).

Although Qadir’s notice of appeal is timely as to the district

court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration under Fed. R.

Civ. P. Rule 60(b), the district court stated it conducted a review

of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and found it

proper. In light of this, we find no error in the district court’s

denial of Qadir’s Rule 60(b) motion raising his failure to receive

a copy of that report and recommendation, as Qadir nevertheless
3

received the review his filing of objections would have entitled

him to.

Accordingly, we dismiss as untimely Qadir’s appeal with respect to the denial of his § 2254 petition, and deny a certificate

of appealability and dismiss his appeal as to the denial of his

Rule 60(b) motion. Additionally, we deny Qadir’s motion to strike

the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation from the record.

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 31.3



CERTIFICATIONS



I, John Ho, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Landsea Homes Corporation; and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Dated: March
    29, 2022 | /s/
    John Ho                     
|------------------------- | ------------------------------------
|                          | John Ho, Chief Executive
    Officer
|                          | (Principal Executive Officer)
Michael HALL, Petitioner v. BROOKDALE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER, et al.

No. 18-9095

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATION**I, Joseph J. Lodovic, IV, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of MediaNews Group, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Date: September 28, 2007   /S/Joseph J. Lodovic, IV    Joseph J. Lodovic, IV   President
Dennis Andrew BALL, Petitioner, v. CITY OF MARION, ILLINOIS.

No. 19-7935.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 18, 2020

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Illinois dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report On Form 10-QSB of King
Capital Holdings, Inc., for the Quarter Ended June 30, 2004, I, Sean King, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of King Capital Holdings, Inc.
hereby 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 and
belief, that:

     1.   Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30,
          2004, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
          the period ended June 30, 2004, fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
          King Capital Holdings, Inc.

Dated:  August 16, 2004

KING CAPITAL HOLDINGS, INC.


By: /s/ Sean King
-------------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
IA 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 101 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to limit 

the number of consecutive terms that a Member of Congress may serve. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 30, 2013 

Mr. PALAZZO introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States to limit the number of consecutive terms that 

a Member of Congress may serve. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

8 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

9 for ratification: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HJ 101 IH 

1 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. No person who has been a Senator for 

3 two consecutive terms shall again be eligible for election 

4 or appointment to the Senate until the date that is one 

5 year after the end of such second consecutive term. 

6 ‘‘SECTION 2. No person who has been a Representa7 tive for six consecutive terms shall again be eligible for 

8 election to the House of Representatives until the date 

9 that is one year after the end of the sixth consecutive 

10 term. 

11 ‘‘SECTION 3. For purposes of this article, any term 

12 a person serves as a Senator or Representative to fill a 

13 vacancy shall not be included in determining the number 

14 of consecutive terms that the person has been a Senator 

15 or Representative unless the period of time for which the 

16 person fills the vacancy is greater than three years in the 

17 case of a Senator or greater than one year in the case 

18 of a Representative. 

19 ‘‘SECTION 4. For the purposes of this article, any 

20 term that began before the date of the ratification of this 

21 article shall not be included in determining the number 

22 of consecutive terms that a person has been a Senator or 

23 Representative.’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Mauricio LUCAS-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Tony TRIERWEILER, Warden.

No. 18-9549

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21
 
                         CENTENNIAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
 
                            SCHEDULE OF SUBSIDIARIES
                              AS OF MARCH 31, 1997
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                      NAME OF ENTITY                            LOCATION         % OWNERSHIP
----------------------------------------------------------  -----------------    -----------
<S>                                                         <C>                  <C>
Centennial Capital Corporation                              Massachusetts            100%
Centennial Technologies Limited                             United Kingdom           100%
Centennial Technologies Canada, Inc.                        Canada                   100%
Centennial Technologies (Thailand) Limited                  Thailand                  51%
Century Electronics Manufacturing, Inc.                     Massachusetts             67%
NCT, Inc.                                                   Massachusetts            100%
Subsidiaries of Century Electronics Manufacturing, Inc.
  Design Circuits, Inc.                                     Massachusetts            100%
  Triax Technology Group Limited                            United Kingdom           100%
</TABLE>
Donald Arthur HERRINGTON, Petitioner, v. VIRGINIA.

No. 19-7551.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 23, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia denied.
Hosam Maher Husein SMADI, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-5778

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 15, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Fitzpatrick, Overton and Senior Judge Hodges 

Argued at Salem, Virginia 

EUGENE ZINCKE AND 

 STORM ZINCKE 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 2819-95-3 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON 

 JULY 2, 1996 

JANE ROHRER AND HARRISONBURG 

 ROCKINGHAM SOCIAL SERVICES DISTRICT 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ROCKINGHAM COUNTY 

Dennis L. Hupp, Judge 

 Dabney Overton, Jr., for appellants. 

 L. Quinn Taylor for appellee Harrisonburg 

Rockingham Social Services District. 

 No brief or argument for appellee Jane 

Rohrer. 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 

 Eugene and Storm Zincke appeal from the decision of the 

circuit court to award custody of their niece to the Harrisonburg 

Rockingham Social Services with the right to place the child for 

adoption and to consent thereto. Appellants contend that the 

circuit court judge did not properly consider several factors, 

including the blood relationship between the appellants and the 

child. 

 On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable 

to the party prevailing below, giving it all reasonable 

inferences fairly deducible therefrom. Farley v. Farley, 9 Va. 

App. 326, 328, 387 S.E.2d 794, 795 (1990). "Where, as here, the 
- 2 - 

court hears the evidence ore tenus, its finding is entitled to 

great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal unless plainly 

wrong or without evidence to support it." Martin v. Pittsylvania 

County Dep't of Social Servs., 3 Va. App. 15, 20, 348 S.E.2d 13, 

16 (1986). 

 The record demonstrates that the circuit court gave proper 

consideration to all of the issues of which appellants complain. 

 The evidence presented, particularly the lack of contact between 

appellants and the child, clearly supports the conclusions of the 

circuit court judge. 

 Accordingly, the order of the circuit court is affirmed. 

 Affirmed.
IA 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 31 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating 

to the authority of Congress and the States to regulate contributions 

and expenditures in political campaigns and to enact public financing 

systems for such campaigns. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 14, 2013 

Mr. SCHIFF (for himself, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. CICILLINE, Mr. FARR, Mr. 

GARAMENDI, Mr. HIMES, Ms. LEE of California, Mr. MICHAUD, Mr. 

MORAN, Ms. NORTON, Mr. WELCH, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Mr. RUPPERSBERGER, Ms. MCCOLLUM, and Mr. RANGEL) introduced the following 

joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States relating to the authority of Congress and the 

States to regulate contributions and expenditures in political campaigns and to enact public financing systems 

for such campaigns. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 31 IH 

1 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

2 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

3 for ratification: 

4 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

5 ‘‘Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to 

6 forbid Congress or the States from imposing reasonable 

7 content-neutral limitations on private campaign contribu8 tions or independent election expenditures, or from enact9 ing systems of public campaign financing, including those 

10 designed to restrict the influence of private wealth by off11 setting campaign spending or independent expenditures 

12 with increased public funding.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Kristi NOEM, Governor of South Dakota, et al., Petitioners, v. FLANDREAU SANTEE SIOUX TRIBE.

No. 19-1056.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 26, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARTA LEA LIZAMA-HERNANDEZ; et 

al.,

 Petitioners,

 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General,

 Respondent.

No. 21-197

Agency Nos.

A209-840-541 

A209-840-542

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 16, 2023**

Before: BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Marta Lea Lizama-Hernandez and her minor daughter1, natives and 

citizens of El Salvador, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal as abandoned. We have 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not 

precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

1 The Clerk will amend the docket to add petitioner’s daughter Britanny 

Nallely Romero-Lizama (A209-840-524) as a petitioner in this case, in 

accordance with the petition for review, filed at Docket Entry No. 1, and the 

agency decision, filed at Docket Entry No. 8.

FILED

MAY 30 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 21-197

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo constitutional claims. 

Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the 

petition for review.

The BIA decision rests solely on the ground that petitioners abandoned 

their appeal, and petitioners do not challenge that conclusion in briefing before 

this court. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 

2013). This court cannot reach grounds not relied on by the BIA. See 

Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing 

the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that 

agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). 

Petitioners’ claim that the BIA violated due process by failing to provide 

meaningful review fails because they have not shown error. See PadillaMartinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To prevail on a dueprocess claim, a petitioner must demonstrate both a violation of rights and 

prejudice.”).

The temporary stay of removal continues in effect as to both petitioners 

until the mandate issues. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**WRITTEN STATEMENT**

**OF**

**CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEFFINANCIAL OFFICER**

The undersigned hereby certify that the Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended March 31, 2007 filed by TNS, Inc. with theSecurities and Exchange Commission fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and that information contained in the report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer.

Dated:May 10, 2007
| /s/ HENRY H. GRAHAM, JR.                                         |   |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Henry H. Graham, Jr.                                        |   |   |
| Chief Executive Officer                                          |   |   |
|                                                             |   |   |
| Dated: May 10, 2007                                         |   |   |
|                                                             |   |   |
| /s/ DENNIS L. RANDOLPH, JR.                                      |   |   |
| Dennis L. Randolph, Jr.                                          |   |   |
| Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer  and Treasurer |   |   |

 

----
IN RE Ramsey RANDALL, Petitioner

No. 18-9388

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for rehearing denied.
IN RE Francisco NARVAEZ, Petitioner

No. 19-5390

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

7/7/23

 Eastern District of Texas

INDIANA TICKET COMPANY, INC. and MUNCIE 

NOVELTY COMPANY, INC.

4:23cv632

CAREWON, LLC and VU NGUYEN,

Carewon, LLC

c/o Registered Agent Vu Nguyen

6100 Ohio Drive, Apt. 624

Plano, Texas 75024

Jenna Johnson

BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

2121 North Pearl Street, Suite 700

Dallas, TX 75201

(214) 258-4200

Jenna.Johnson@btlaw.com

Case 4:23-cv-00632-ALM Document 5 Filed 07/07/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 53
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

u I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

u I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

u I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

u I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

u Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

4:23cv632

0.00

Case 4:23-cv-00632-ALM Document 5 Filed 07/07/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 54
PRINCETON DIGITAL IMAGE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ADOBE INC.

No. 18-1343

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 4, 2019

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