alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED**  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 7161** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. DEVON L. ALEXANDER , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Mark S. Davis , District Judge. ( 4:06

- cr - 00118

- WDK

- TEM

- 1 )

Submitted : December 16, 2010 Decided: December 28, 2010

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Devon L. Alexander, Appellant Pro Se. Howard Jacob Zlotnick, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Devon L . Alexander appeals the district c ourt ’ s order s denying his motion to dismiss his indictment and motion to reconsider. The district court also considered Alexander’s motion as one for a new trial under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accord ingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. United States v. Alexander , No. 4:06

- cr - 00118

- WDK

- TEM

- 1 (E.D. Va. June 23, 2010 & July 13, 2010)
. We deny Alexander’s motion to compel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and l egal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
[ARTICLE] 6
[CIK] 0000880583
[NAME] US GOV'T SEC. PORTFOLIO
[SERIES]
   [NUMBER] 001
   [NAME] THE TRAVELERS SERIES TRUST
<TABLE>
<S>                             <C>
[PERIOD-TYPE]                   YEAR
[FISCAL-YEAR-END]                          DEC-31-1999
[PERIOD-END]                               DEC-31-1999
[INVESTMENTS-AT-COST]                       63,948,034
[INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE]                      60,688,943
[RECEIVABLES]                                  531,355
[ASSETS-OTHER]                                 448,215
[OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS]                                 0
[TOTAL-ASSETS]                              61,668,513
[PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES]                             0
[SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT]                              0
[OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES]                       45,822
[TOTAL-LIABILITIES]                             45,822
[SENIOR-EQUITY]                                      0
[PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON]                    64,156,331
[SHARES-COMMON-STOCK]                        5,451,398
[SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR]                        5,632,090
[ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT]                    3,702,189
[OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII]                               0
[ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS]                    (2,976,738)
[OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS]                             0
[ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC]                   (3,259,091)
[NET-ASSETS]                                61,622,691
[DIVIDEND-INCOME]                                    0
[INTEREST-INCOME]                            4,068,794
[OTHER-INCOME]                                       0
[EXPENSES-NET]                                 302,146
[NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME]                      3,766,648
[REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT]                   (2,696,924)
[APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT]                  (3,730,793)
[NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS]                      (2,661,069)
[EQUALIZATION]                                       0
[DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME]                        5,416
[DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS]                             0
[DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER]                                0
[NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD]                      1,246,566
[NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED]                  1,427,742
[SHARES-REINVESTED]                                484
[NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS]                     (4,831,319)
[ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR]                          5,474
[ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR]                    (344,273)
[OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR]                              0
[OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR]                           0
[GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES]                          243,546
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]                                   0
[GROSS-EXPENSE]                                302,146
[AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS]                        63,144,817
[PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN]                            11.80
[PER-SHARE-NII]                                   0.69
[PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC]                         (1.19)
[PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND]                              0.00
[PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS]                         0.00
[RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL]                                 0
[PER-SHARE-NAV-END]                              11.30
[EXPENSE-RATIO]                                   0.48
</TABLE>
```

```

----

Updated May 30, 2014
Frederick Charles HARRIS, II, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-7399

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 2, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
Essie MCDANIEL, Petitioner v. Robert WILKIE, Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

No. 18-9622

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
SMITH BARNEY CONCERT SERIES

Supplement dated February 24, 1997
to Prospectus dated August 5, 1996


The Board of Directors of the Smith Barney Concert Series Inc. (the "Series")
has voted to change the name of the Series to the Smith Barney Concert 
Allocation Series Inc., effective February 24, 1997.  Management believed 
insertion of the word "allocation" is necessary to differentiate the
current Series portfolios with other funds that will carry the Concert
name.

This change in name does not represent a change in the investment policies
or objectives of the  Series.  Rather, by adding the word allocation, the
name will better define the Series investment  strategy - to allocate
the investments of the individual portfolios in a number of other
Smith Barney Mutual Funds, based on the investment objective of each
portfolio.

FD 01273
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROCHE DIABETES CARE, LTD.,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00585-JRG-RSP

PATENT CASE

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DEFENDANT ROCHE DIABETES CARE, LTD.’S 

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

As required by Rule 7.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Roche Diabetes Care

Limited (“RDC Limited”) states that it is not aware of any legal entity under the name of “Roche 

Diabetes Care, Ltd.” RDC Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of Roche Holding (UK) Limited, 

registered in the UK. Roche Holding (UK) Limited is wholly owned by Roche Holding Ltd,

registered in Switzerland. No other publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of RDC 

Limited’s stock. 

Case 2:23-cv-00585-JRG-RSP Document 22 Filed 05/08/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 851
2

Dated: May 8, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Aaron P. Pirouznia

Terry J. Stalford

Texas Bar No. 24011686

stalford@fr.com

Aaron P. Pirouznia

Texas Bar No. 24098958

pirouznia@fr.com

Noel F. Chakkalakal

Texas Bar No. 24053676

chakkalakal@fr.com

Alexander H. Martin

Texas Bar No. 24091828

martin@fr.com

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

1717 Main Street, Suite 5000

Dallas, TX 75201

Telephone: (214) 747-5070

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT

ROCHE DIABETES CARE, LIMITED

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing 

document has been served on May 8, 2024, to all counsel of record who are deemed to have 

consented to electronic service via the Court’s CM/ECF system. 

/s/ Aaron P. Pirouznia

Aaron P. Pirouznia

Case 2:23-cv-00585-JRG-RSP Document 22 Filed 05/08/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 852
EXHIBIT  23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

   The Board of Directors
   Wave Systems Corp.

   We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
     Nos. 333-38265, 333-28819, and 333-20017 on Form S-3 and Nos. 333-68911,
     333-69041, 33-97612, 333-11611 and 333-11609 on Form S-8, of our report
     dated March 26, 1999, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Wave
     Systems Corp. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, and the
     related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity
     (deficiency), and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period
     ended December 31, 1998 and for the period from February 12, 1988
     (inception) through December 31, 1998 which report appears in the December
     31, 1998 annual report on Form 10-K of Wave Systems Corp.


                                                           KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

                                                       /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

   Boston, Massachusetts
   March 30, 1999
Gregory Waddell HAYES, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-5479

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2018384EN.01000801.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 24.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 384/8 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.8881 — Bergé/GEFCO/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 384/05)

1.

On 16 October 2018, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2018384EN.01000801-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Bergé Automotive Logistics, S.L. (‘BAL’, Spain), belonging to Bergé y Cía, S.A., |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | GEFCO España, S.A. (‘GEFCO España’, Spain), belonging to GEFCO, S.A. (GEFCO, France). |

BAL and GEFCO España acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of a newly-created company that would integrate and manage the finished vehicle logistic businesses and assets of both companies in Spain.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—   for BAL: the provision of logistics services to the automotive industry in Spain.

—   for GEFCO España: the provision of logistics services to a variety of industries, including the provision of integrated logistics services to the automotive industry in Spain. GEFCO offers supply chain solutions including automotive logistics, and is ultimately controlled by the Russian state-owned rail company RZD.

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.8881 — Bergé/GEFCO/JV

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

| |
| --- |
| Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu |
| Fax +32 229-64301 |
| Postal address: |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2018384EN.01000801-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

---
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1089**

**KA 10-00160**

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DERON BOSTIC, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ROBERT B. HALLBORG, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (MICHAEL J. HILLERY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Russell P. Buscaglia, A.J.), entered August 16, 2010 pursuant to the 2009 Drug Law Reform Act. The order denied defendant’s application to be resentenced upon defendant’s 2006 conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Erie County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order denying his application for resentencing pursuant to CPL 440.46, the 2009 Drug Law Reform Act. The People correctly concede that Supreme Court erred in concluding that defendant is ineligible for resentencing on the ground that he had a prior conviction for an “exclusion offense” defined in CPL 440.46 (5) (a) (1). The court calculated the look-back period of 10 years set forth in that statute from the date that defendant committed the crime for which he was applying to be resentenced, rather than from the date of filing of the application for resentencing ( see People v Reeb , 82 AD3d 1620; People v Hill , 82 AD3d 77, 79-80). We therefore reverse the order, and we remit the matter to Supreme Court to determine whether defendant’s application was premature when filed and, if so, when the application will become ripe for adjudication. Upon remittal, the court must first ascertain the date on which defendant’s prior violent felony offense occurred. The court must then ascertain the time period that defendant was incarcerated for that prior violent felony offense, which the court must exclude when calculating whether the prior violent felony offense took place within the 10-year period preceding the date on which the application for resentencing was filed ( see Reeb , 82 AD3d 1620).

Entered: November 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan
Clerk of the Court
EXHIBIT 32.a



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 Quarterly Report of Boston Capital Tax Credit Fund V L.P. (the "Fund") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John P. Manning, Principal Executive Officer of the Fund's general partner, Boston Capital Associates V, L.L.C., certify, pursuant to 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, after due inquiry:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)-15 or 15(d)-15 of the Securities and 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 Fund.



|                |  |                            
|--------------- |  | ---------------------------
|Date:           |  |                            
|August 14, 2009 |  | /s/ John P. Manning        
|                |  |                            
|                |  | John P. Manning            
|                |  | Principal Executive Officer
|                |  |                            
|                |  |                            



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other

document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY
RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION 
 In
connection with Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report of Origen Financial, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned officers, Ronald A. Klein and W. Anderson Geater, Jr., hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to their knowledge: 
 
 (1) Such
Amendment No. 1 to 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 Such Amendment No. 1 to the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Company. 
 
 /s/ Ronald
A. KleinRonald A. Klein, Chief Executive Officer
    

Dated:
August 12, 2005
 
 
 /s/ W. Anderson Geater, Jr.W. Anderson Geater, Jr., Chief Financial Officer
    

Dated:
August 12, 2005
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1827

In Re: PRESTON LEVONNE BUIE,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(1:08-cr-00347-WO-1)

Submitted: October 3, 2014 Decided: October 9, 2014

Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Preston Levonne Buie, Petitioner Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Preston Levonne Buie petitions for a writ of mandamus, 

alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion to vacate. He seeks an order from 

this court directing the district court to act on the motion and 

to release him on bond pending the motion’s resolution. Our 

review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district 

court issued an order denying relief on the § 2255 motion on 

September 16, 2014. Accordingly, because the district court has 

recently decided Buie’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as 

moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

PETITION DENIED
Melvin PEREZ, Petitioner v. FLORIDA

No. 18-9835

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for a writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See *Martin* v. *District of Columbia Court of Appeals* , 506 U.S. 1, 113 S.Ct. 397, 121 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992) (*per curiam* ).
---

Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Scott M. Miller, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Melt Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer
as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and I have:

> a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure
>     that material information relating to the small business issuer, including
>     its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
>     entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is
>     being prepared;
>   b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers
>     disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
>     about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the
>     end of the period covered by this quarterly report based on such evaluation;
>     and
>   c) disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the
>     small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that
>     occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter
>     that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
>     the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent functions):

> a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses
>     in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which
>     are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuers
>     ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
>   b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
>     or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers
>     internal control over financial reporting.

Dated: August 14, 2007

/s/ Scott Miller
  Scott M. Miller
  Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President
  (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)

---
Exhibit E

Case 2:24-cv-00021-JRG Document 54-6 Filed 07/18/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 3119
Case 2:24-cv-00021-JRG Document 54-6 Filed 07/18/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 3120
Blake Joseph SANDLAIN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-9151.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 23, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
**Exhibit 32**
**      CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT**
     The  undersigned,  Norman W. Gayle,  III,  President and Chief Executive  Officer of Vesta Insurance Group,  Inc. (the "Company"),  andHopson B.  Nance,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the  Company,  certify,  pursuant to  Section 906  of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:
     (1)           the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly  period ended June 30, 2004 (the "Report")  fully complies         with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
     (2)           the information  contained in the Report fairly presents,  in all material  respects,  the financial  condition and results of         operations of the Company.
Dated: August 9, 2004                                                                                                                                 */s/   Norman W. Gayle, III*                                                                                                                                    Norman W. Gayle, III                                                                                                                        *President and Chief Executive Officer*