alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals** 
**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

ROBERT J. SPAHN,

Claimant

- Appellant,

v.

Eric K. Shinseki , SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent

- Appellee.

______________________

2013

- 7006

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for

Veterans Claims in No. 11

- 1846, Judge Mary J. Schoelen.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

O R D E R

Upon consideration of Robert J. Spahn’s unopposed motion to withdraw his appeal,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :

(1) The motion is granted. The appeal is dismissed.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs. Case: 13-7006 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 05/09/2013ROBERT SPAHN V

. SHINSEKI 2

F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly

Clerk

s21

Issued As A Mandate: May 9, 2013 Case: 13-7006 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 05/09/2013
**Exhibit 99.20****CONSENT OF C. CARR**     Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F and the documents incorporated byreference therein (the “40-F”) of Goldcorp Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December31, 2009, and any amendments thereto, to be filed with the United States Securities and ExchangeCommission pursuant to the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and theAnnual Information Form (the “AIF”) and Management’s Discussion and Analysis (“MD&A”) of theCompany for the year then ended, which are filed as exhibits to and incorporated by reference inthe 40-F.     I hereby consent to the references to, and the information derived from, the followingreport(s) and to the references, as applicable, to my name in connection with (including, as anexpert) the following report(s) and documents: 1. The technical report dated May 1, 2008, entitled “Pueblo Viejo GoldProject, Dominican Republic Technical Report” (the “Pueblo ViejoReport”); and  2. The 40-F, the MD&A and the AIF, which include references in connectionwith information relating to the Pueblo Viejo Report and the PuebloViejo Project, and the properties described therein.Date:March 19, 2010              /s/ Christopher A. Carr     Name:  Christopher A. Carr, P. Eng.     Rescan Environmental Services Ltd.
Exhibit 32.1**CERTIFICATION**     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title18 of the United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Inn of the Mountain Gods Resortand Casino (the “***Company***”) does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Companyon Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2008 (the “***Report***”) that:1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.       Date: March 14, 2008 By       /s/ Brian D. Parrish    Name:  Brian D. Parrish    Its: Chief Operating Officer (Principal Executive Officer)         Date: March 14, 2008 By       /s/ Pamela Gallegos           Name: Pamela Gallegos    Its: Interim Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)       The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) andis not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7252

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

RASHAD CUNNINGHAM, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., 

Senior District Judge. (4:04-cr-00127-HCM-JEB-1) 

Submitted: October 14, 2008 Decided: October 20, 2008 

Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Rashad Cunningham, Appellant Pro Se. Fernando Groene, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Rashad Cunningham appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion to compel the Government to file a Fed. R. 

Crim. P. 35(b) motion to reduce his sentence for substantial 

assistance. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. United States v. Cunningham, No. 4:04-cr-00127-

HCM-JEB-1 (E.D. Va. Nov. 17, 2006). 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. 

AFFIRMED
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

No. 08-0800

IN RE  HOUSTON PIPE LINE COMPANY, L.P. D/B/A HOUSTON PIPE LINE COMPANY; ENERGY TRANSFER EQUITY, L.P.; ENERGY TRANSFER PARTNERS, L.P.; AND LA GRANGE ACQUISITION, L.P. D/B/A ENERGY TRANSFER COMPANY

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

**ORDERED:**

1.Relators’ motion for emergency stay, filed September 26, 2008, is granted.   All trial court proceedings in Cause No. 07-3-65,478-D, styled *O'Connor & Hewitt, Ltd., as the Authorized Agent of the Sellers in a Gas Purchase Agreement effective January 1, 1998, with Houston Pipeline Company, as amended v. Houston Pipeline Company L.P., d/b/a Houston Pipeline Company; Energy Transfer Equity, L.P;Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.; and La Grange Acquisition, L.P. d/b/a Energy Transfer Company*, in the 377th District Court of Victoria County, Texas, are stayed pending further order of this Court.

2.The real party in interest is requested to respond to relator’s petition for writ of mandamus on or before November 17, 2008.

3.The petition for writ of mandamus remains pending before this Court.

Done at the City of Austin, this October 17, 2008.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

Supreme Court of Texas

By Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136789 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 136789 

 COA: 278300 

Gladwin CC: 06-002475-FH 

RANDALL RAY JONES,

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 8, 2008 

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. 

l0915 

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. 

September 22, 2008 

 Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4031 Received in Senate (RDS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4031

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 22, 2014

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the removal of 
   Senior Executive Service employees of the Department of Veterans 
            Affairs for performance, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Veterans Affairs 
Management Accountability Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE EMPLOYEES OF THE DEPARTMENT 
              OF VETERANS AFFAIRS FOR PERFORMANCE.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 7 of title 38, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 713. Senior Executive Service: removal based on performance
    ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
Secretary may remove any individual from the Senior Executive Service 
if the Secretary determines the performance of the individual warrants 
such removal. If the Secretary so removes such an individual, the 
Secretary may--
            ``(1) remove the individual from Federal service; or
            ``(2) transfer the individual to a General Schedule 
        position at any grade of the General Schedule the Secretary 
        determines appropriate.
    ``(b) Notice to Congress.--Not later than 30 days after removing an 
individual from the Senior Executive Service under paragraph (1), the 
Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the 
Senate and House of Representatives notice in writing of such removal 
and the reason for such removal.
    ``(c) Manner of Removal.--A removal under this section shall be 
done in the same manner as the removal of a professional staff member 
employed by a Member of Congress.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``713. Senior Executive Service: removal based on performance.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 21, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-07-349-CR

TOMMY JEROLD HUTCHINGS, JR.	APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

	------------

	FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

	------------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

	------------

	Tommy Jerold Hutchings, Jr. appeals his conviction for possession of methamphetamine—one gram or more but less than four grams.  Hutchings’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion.  In his motion, counsel avers that he has conducted a professional evaluation of the record and, after a thorough review of the applicable law, has reached the conclusion that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced to support an appeal of this cause and that the appeal is frivolous.  Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no reversible grounds on appeal and referencing any grounds that might arguably support the appeal.  See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 741, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967); Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922–23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.).  Hutchings was given the opportunity to file a pro se brief on his own behalf, but he chose not to do so.

	In our duties as a reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of the record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining that the appeal is frivolous.  See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays, 904 S.W.2d at 923.  Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.  See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).

	We have carefully reviewed the appellate record and counsel’s brief.  We agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.  See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Therefore, we grant the motion to withdraw filed by Hutchings’s appellate counsel and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

							PER CURIAM

PANEL:  HOLMAN, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED:  October 16, 2008
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“W hen denying relief, the court m ay hand down an opinion but 1

is not required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and m em orandum opinions).

NUMBER 13-08-00460-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE CANDACE TONKENS, DEPENDENT ADMINISTRATOR

OF THE ESTATE OF AMY ANN CONKEY, DECEASED

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

1

Relator, Candace Tonkens, Dependent Administrator of the Estate of Amy Ann

Conkey, Deceased, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on July 31,

2008. On August 4, 2008, the Court entered an order requesting a response to be filed by

the real party in interest, Duane Conkey in his Capacity as Administrator of the Estate of

Raymond Conkey, Deceased. Subsequently, the real party in interest requested and

received an extension of time to file his response, and such response was duly filed on
2

August 29, 2008. On September 10, 2008, relator filed a reply to this response. 

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,

the response, and the reply thereto, is of the opinion that relator has not shown herself

entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and 

filed this 30 day of September, 2008. th
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEET, CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         350,608
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,029,778
<ALLOWANCES>                                   176,223
<INVENTORY>                                    314,342
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,102,177
<PP&E>                                       3,723,615
<DEPRECIATION>                                 942,457
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,017,990
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,958,616
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    18,507,874
<OTHER-SE>                                (13,438,422)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,017,990
<SALES>                                     12,934,643
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,808,888
<CGS>                                        4,599,929
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,666,962
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            14,710,998
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             548,916
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,326,192)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,326,192)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,326,192)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.46)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATIONS OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Richard A. Franco, Sr., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of DARA BioSciences, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act and that information
contained in such Annual Report of DARA BioSciences, Inc. on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of DARA BioSciences, Inc.



|       |  |                                      
|------ |  | -------------------------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Richard A. Franco, Sr.           
|       | 
|Name:  |  | Richard A. Franco, Sr.               
|Title: |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|Date:  |  | March 25, 2011                       

I, Ann A. Rosar, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of DARA BioSciences, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act and that information contained in such Annual Report of DARA BioSciences, Inc. on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of DARA BioSciences, Inc.



|       |  |                         
|------ |  | ------------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Ann A. Rosar        
|       | 
|Name:  |  | Ann A. Rosar            
|Title: |  | Chief Accounting Officer
|Date:  |  | March 25, 2011
The GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY and its successors, Petitioner, v. Cherie K. BERRY, Commissioner of Labor of the State of North Carolina, Respondent.

No. COA16-520

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: January 17, 2017

AFFIRMED.
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CENTER FOR PUBLIC ANALYSIS ON 

TRADE AND HEALTH (CPATH

CALIFORNIA PUBLIC HEALTH

ASSOCIATION — NORTH; et al., No. 06-16682

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

D.C. No.

and CV-05-05177-MJJ  AMERICAN NURSES ASSOCIATION, ORDER

Plaintiff, AMENDING

v. OPINION

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Martin J. Jenkins, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted

May 16, 2008—San Francisco, California

Filed October 8, 2008

Before: Procter Hug, Jr. and N. Randy Smith, Circuit Judges,

and Richard Mills,* District Judge.

*The Honorable Richard Mills, Senior United States District Judge for

the Central District of Illinois, sitting by designation. 

14269
ORDER

The caption in case number 06-16682, as well as the caption on the Opinion filed August 22, 2008 is amended as follows. 

CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS ON

TRADE AND HEALTH (CPATH), 

CALIFORNIA PUBLIC HEALTH 

ASSOCIATION — NORTH, CHINESE 

PROGRESSIVE ASSOCIATION, No. 06-16682 

PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL 

RESPONSIBILITY, AMERICAN 

NURSES ASSOCIATION, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v. 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE; UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

14270 CPATH v. OFFICE OF THE U.S. TRADE REP.

PRINTED FOR

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS

BY THOMSON REUTERS/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted

© 2008 Thomson Reuters/West.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7038

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL ALONZA RUFUS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (3:04-cv-23082-MJP; 3:02-cr-00550-MJP-1)

Submitted: September 11, 2008 Decided: September 17, 2008

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Alonza Rufus, Appellant Pro Se. William Kenneth

Witherspoon, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Alonza Rufus seeks to appeal the district court’s

order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and denying it on that basis. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000);

Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong

and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is

likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38

(2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,

252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Rufus has not made the

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Rufus’ notice of appeal and

informal brief as an application to file a second or successive

motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Winestock, 340

F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to

file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims
3

based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously

unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on

collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously

discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to

establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for

constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the

movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255

(2000). Rufus’ claims do not satisfy either of these criteria.

Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255

motion. 

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