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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6794

MYRON RODERICK NUNN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

FRANK PERRY,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III,

Chief District Judge. (5:14-hc-02129-D)

Submitted: October 15, 2015 Decided: October 19, 2015

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Myron Roderick Nunn, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Andrew Regulski, 

Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Myron Roderick Nunn seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Nunn has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-01-1999
<CASH>                                         6,947
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         2,784
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    105,127
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         87
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           86
<LOANS>                                        320,617
<ALLOWANCE>                                     (2,887)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 451,045
<DEPOSITS>                                     368,699
<SHORT-TERM>                                   5,170
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            1,969
<LONG-TERM>                                    32,582
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       45
<OTHER-SE>                                     42,579
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 451,045
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                6,296
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              1,929
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               8,225
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             3,914
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             4,451
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          3,774
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  220
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             217
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                2,822
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,416
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     804
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   804
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .24
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                 7.57
<LOANS-NON>                                    0
<LOANS-PAST>                                   0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               1,381
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                40
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               2,780
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  113
<RECOVERIES>                                   0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              2,887
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           2,887
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                            0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        0
        

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

<ARTICLE>       9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM UNAUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DATED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,987,822
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       4,674,595
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  7,907,598
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         440,483
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           446,000
<LOANS>                                     28,365,532
<ALLOWANCE>                                     78,500
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              44,563,762
<DEPOSITS>                                  34,755,316
<SHORT-TERM>                                    21,673
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            520,700
<LONG-TERM>                                  3,699,985
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,317
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,562,771
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              44,563,762
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                583,622
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               33,789
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               177,945
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               795,356
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             395,871
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             451,860
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          343,496
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                261,437
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                109,253
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    68,232
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .24
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     .02
<LOANS-NON>                                    456,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                77,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                     1,500
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               78,500
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            68,400
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         10,100
IN RE A.R.S.

No. COA08-1324.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 17, 2009.

Certification Date March 9, 2009.

Appeal from Rutherford (06J9, 06J10).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
# CE2004088EN.01001101.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/11

---

(2004/C 88 E/0011)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0356/03

by Bill Newton Dunn (ELDR) and Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 February 2003)

Subject:   Human rights abuses in Honduras

Subject:

The Commission will be aware of the human rights abuses, notably the frequent murder of street children, which continue in Honduras.

Has the Commission:

| 1. | Made representations to the Honduran Government? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Made representations to the Honduran Government?

| 2. | Other plans, to try to improve the dreadful situation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Other plans, to try to improve the dreadful situation?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2003)

(28 February 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Members to its joint reply to questions E-0086/03 by Mr Roger Helmer and question E-0097/03 by Mr Philip Whitehead on the same subject (1).

1

---

(1)  See page 5.

1

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Edward Demorris HUCKABEE.

No. 536P04-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 11, 2007.

Edward E. Huckabee, Pro Se.

Marvin R. Waters, Assistant Attorney General, Ben David, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 8th day of May 2007 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of October 2007."
----

(2004/C 65 E/134)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2261/03

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(8 July 2003)

Subject:   Survey of government support for professional football clubs

The Netherlands' Government, further to the letter of 11 July 2002 to it from the Commission (DG Competition H3/NTI/amv D(2002) 0422), has had a survey carried out of the type and extent of the financial relationship between 33 local authorities and professional football clubs (and their home grounds). As a result of the survey, the Netherlands' Government is now taking action to eliminate the lack of clarity surrounding the relationship between government and professional football clubs, having regard to the role they play in society, in a collaborative effort involving central government, provinces, local authorities, the Royal Dutch Football Association and the Commission.

However, such lack of clarity is not confined solely to the Netherlands. A similar survey of the situation throughout Europe would therefore be particularly welcome.

Has the Commission voiced its concerns to other Member States about suspected State aid? If so, which?

What does the Commission think of a Europe-wide survey of government support for professional football clubs? Is the Commission willing to have such a survey carried out?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(13 August 2003)

The Commission is currently assessing several potential state aid measures. In so far, questions have been posed to the Italian government regarding a decree allowing an apparently favourable application of accounting rules to professional sports clubs. The answers to these questions are currently being assessed. At the same time, based on a complaint, the sale of certain real estate to football club AZ in the Netherlands is under assessment. In this case the Commission has opened on 23 July 2003 a formal procedure. The Commission also recalls that it examined a French government's notification about public subsidies for professional sports clubs in 2001 and decided not to object because the measures were designed to assist education and initial training and as such constituted an educational or comparable scheme but not a state aid under the EC Treaty.

The Commission maintains that its policy should be developed on the basis of individual cases. Therefore, the Commission does at this stage not intend to launch a Europe-wide investigation regarding state aid to professional football clubs.

----
WALLACE v. FT. MYERS PARTNERSHIP, et al.

No. 257P08-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 22, 2008.

Coward Law Firm, Washington, DC, for Ft. Myers Partnership, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 10th day of July 2008 by Plaintiff to Proceed in Forma Pauperis:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 22nd day of July 2008."
COMMSCOPE CREDIT UNION v. BUTLER AND BURKE, LLP, et al.

No. 5PA15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 2, 2015.

Alfred P. Carlton, Jr., Raleigh, for Commscope Credit Union.

L. Oliver Noble, Jr., Hickory, for Commscope Credit Union.

Michael Joseph Barnett, Hickory, for Commscope Credit Union.

Frederick K. Sharpless, Greensboro, for Butler & Burke, LLP.

Christopher Carlisle Lam, Charlotte, for Graham, Barry D., et al.

*510Camden R. Webb, Raleigh, for Pope, Todd, et al.

J. Mitchell Armbruster, Raleigh, for NCACPA, AICPA, and Center for Audit Quality.

Michael W. Mitchell, Raleigh, for NCACPA, AICPA, and Center for Audit Quality.

Lauren H. Bradley, Raleigh, for NCACPA, AICPA, and Center for Audit Quality.

Brent Powell, Winston-Salem, for Cherry Bekaert LLP, et al.

C. Mark Wiley, Winston-Salem, for Cherry Bekaert LLP, et al.

Michael R. Cashin, Winston-Salem, for Cherry Bekaert LLP, et al.

Mel J. Garofalo, Charlotte, for N.C. Chamber.

Noel L. Allen, Raleigh, for National Association of State Boards of Accountancy.

Nathan E. Standley, for National Association of State Boards of Accountancy.

Ashley E. Eiler, for Butler & Burke, LLP.

Richard A. Simpson, for Butler & Burke, LLP.

Brian D. Boone, Charlotte, for Chamber of Commerce of the USA.

Ian S. Richardson, for Commscope Credit Union.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 1st of September 2015 by Plaintiff to Withdraw Motion to Remove:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 2nd of September 2015."
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6766

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ISRAEL ARELLANO-ARELLANO,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Glen E. Conrad, District 

Judge. (5:07-cr-00063-gec-mfu-19; 5:10-cv-80242-gec-mfu)

Submitted: July 20, 2010 Decided: July 27, 2010

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Israel Arellano-Arellano, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray 

Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Israel Arellano-Arellano seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Arellano-Arellano has not made the requisite 

showing. Accordingly, we deny the motions for a certificate of 

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
STATE of North Carolina v. Rickey G. SHORE.

No. 154P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 10, 2015.

Rickey G. Shore, for Shore, Rickey G.

Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Tom Horner, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 4th of May 2015 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> *65"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 10th of June 2015."
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                            9
<LEGEND>
     Footnote (a) represents diluted. Footnote (b) represents basic.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           7,401
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          25,597
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    158,423
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                             108
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               107
<LOANS>                                        249,060
<ALLOWANCE>                                     (2,770)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 460,183
<DEPOSITS>                                     371,166
<SHORT-TERM>                                     5,453
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              3,344
<LONG-TERM>                                     35,582
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0 
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            36
<OTHER-SE>                                      44,605
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 460,183
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 15,487
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                7,132
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                22,619
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              12,391
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,587
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            9,032
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      682
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  14
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  8,145
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,595
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,595
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       833
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .21(a)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .23(b)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.46
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,718
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 1,193
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    898
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,669
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       (0)
<RECOVERIES>                                         2
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,770
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,770
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Michael B. Neth, Appellant, v Mary E. Sherman, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[801 NYS2d 216]

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Genesee County (Eric R. Adams, J.), entered August 17, 2004 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order dismissed the petition seeking visitation with the parties’ son.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, petitioner appeals from an order dismissing his petition seeking visitation with his son and, in appeal No. 2, he appeals from an order granting respondent’s *1369motion to dismiss the petition. Both orders are dated August 13, 2004 and were entered August 17, 2004. We note at the outset that the appeal from the order in appeal No. 2 must be dismissed as moot because we conclude that the petition was properly dismissed by the order in appeal No. 1. We reject petitioner’s contention that Family Court erred in granting respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition without conducting a hearing. Petitioner failed to make the requisite evidentiary showing of a change in circumstances “reflecting] a real need for change to ensure the best interest[s] of the child” to warrant a hearing *(Matter of Irwin v Neyland,*213 AD2d 773, 773 [1995]; *see Matter of Di Fiore v Scott,*2 AD3d 1417, 1417-1418 [2003]; *Matter of Wurmlinger v Freer,*256 AD2d 1069 [1998]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Smith, Pine and Hayes, *JJ.*
Amendment to Stock Purchase Agreement


Amendment to the Stock Purchase Agreement

Between Paul Prahl and Epazz, Inc. dated September 2, 2010




Section 1.05 Delivery of the Common Stock: Payment of Purchase Price

At Closing Intellisys stock certificate of 85 shares will be held by Newtek Small Business Lending until Newtek Small Business Lending SBA 7a loan is paid by Purchaser.  Then the stock certificate will be deliver to Seller’s lawyer office. 




Signature/s/ Paul Prahl                          

Paul  Prahl  







Signature /s/ Shaun Passley                          

Shaun Passley, CEO of Epazz, Inc.