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

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

OCT 15, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 07-14112

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 05-00014-CV-CDL-4

TOMMY SCOTT,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

STEVEN UPTON,

Warden,

KEVIN ROBERTS,

Warden,

Respondents-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

_________________________

(October 15, 2008)

Before BLACK, CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Georgia prisoner Tommy Scott appeals pro se the district court’s denial of

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition asserting ineffective assistance of counsel based on

error under Bruton v. United States, 88 S. Ct. 1620, 1621-22 (1968). We

previously vacated the district court’s order and remanded for it to consider, in the

first instance, whether Scott was prejudiced by trial counsel’s failure to object to

inadmissable hearsay testimony implicating Scott in the murder for which he was

convicted. On remand, the district court concluded Scott failed to meet his burden

in demonstrating he was prejudiced by his counsel’s deficient performance. On

appeal, Scott asserts that counsel’s failure to object to, or request a limiting

instruction for, the inadmissable testimony was highly prejudicial under the second

prong of Strickland v. Washington, 104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984).

We review a district court’s denial of a § 2254 petition de novo. McNair v.

Campbell, 416 F.3d 1291, 1297 (11th Cir. 2005). Factual findings are reviewed

for clear error, while mixed questions of law and fact, including claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel, are reviewed de novo. Id.

In our review of this appeal, we realized that substantial portions of the state

trial court record were missing. The State has now supplemented the record to

include the transcript of the entire trial in state court. The district court, however,

has not had the opportunity to review the full record. Thus, we remand this case to

2
give the district court the opportunity to review the full record in the first instance.

In its review of the full record and application of the prejudice prong of Strickland,

the district court should determine “whether there is a reasonable probability that,

absent the errors, the factfinder would have had a reasonable doubt respecting

guilt.” See Strickland, 104 S. Ct. at 2068-69.

1

VACATED AND REMANDED.

 In its opinion, the district court only excised the evidence presented by the 1

inadmissable statements and found the remaining evidence was sufficient to sustain Scott’s

conviction and did not conduct the step of determining what effect the inadmissable statements

had on the jury’s verdict.

3
State of North Carolina v. Melvin Emanuel Goodwin

No. 20P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 12, 2017.

Mr. Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Ben R. David, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

Mr. Melvin Emanuel Goodwin, Pro se.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the application filed by Defendant on the 12th of January 2017 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, New Hanover County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 12th of January 2017."
LEAVITT v. STATE

192P16-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 22, 2016

Owen D. Leavitt, For Leavitt, Owen D.

Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, Sarah Kirkman, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 19th of August 2016 by Petitioner for Certiorari/Appeal Notice and Objection:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 22nd of September 2016."
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-30438

Summary Calendar

ASHTON R. O’DWYER, JR., 

on his own behalf and on behalf of his

clients in the “Victims of Katrina” litigation

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

DANIEL E. BECNEL, JR.; CALVIN C.

FAYARD, JR.; D. BLAYNE HONEYCUTT; 

JOSEPH M. BRUNO; UNIDENTIFIED 

PARTIES, all other lawyers who may be 

admitted to the bar of this court, but who are 

similarly situated to the named respondents

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

No. 2:08-CV-1127

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 3, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-30438

2

This appeal seeks review ofthe en banc determination ofthe United States

District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana concerning the plaintiffappellant’s disciplinary complaint against defendant-appellees. Appellant lacks

standing to appeal. The appeal is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction.
State of North Carolina v. Brian Hancock

No. 337P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2017

Joseph P. Lattimore, Attorney at Law, for Hancock, Brian.

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

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 6th of September 2016 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, 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 26th of January 2017."
NO. 12-08-00345-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

DASHUN HATCHER. § APPEAL FROM THE 87TH

APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

TEXAS DEPARTMENT 

OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE- § ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

APPELLEE

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This pro se in forma pauperis appeal is being dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas

Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). The judgment in this case was signed

on July 17, 2008. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal that failed to contain the information

required by Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.5 and 25.1(e), i.e., a certificate of service showing

service on all parties to the trial court's judgment.

On August 28, 2008, Appellant was notified pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure

37.1 that the notice of appeal was defective for failure to comply with Rules 9.5 and 25.1(e). He was

further notified that unless he filed an amended notice of appeal on or before September 29, 2008,

the appeal would be referred to the court for dismissal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). The deadline

for filing an amended notice of appeal has passed, and Appellant has not corrected his defective

notice of appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules

of Appellate Procedure. See TEX.R.APP.P. 42.3(c); Feist v. Berg, No. 12-04-00004-CV, 2004 WL
2

252785, at *1 (Tex. App.–Tyler Feb. 11, 2004, pet. denied); Feist v. Hubert, No. 12-03-00442-CV,

2004 WL 252285, at *1 (Tex. App.–Tyler Feb. 11, 2004, pet. denied).

Opinion delivered October 8, 2008.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION v. MISSION BATTLEGROUND PARK, DST, et al.

361PA16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 1, 2017

*323Bruce P. Ashley, Attorney at Law, Patrick M. Kane, Attorney at Law, Kip David Nelson, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, Matthew Nis Leerberg, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, For Mission Battleground Park, DST, et al.

Hilda Burnett-Baker, Special Deputy Attorney General, Phyllis A. Turner, Assistant Attorney General, For NC Department Of Transportation.

Garth Dunklin, Attorney at Law, For James F. Collins.

Lorin J. Lapidus, Attorney at Law, G. Gray Wilson, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, For Civitas Institute.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 27th of February 2017 by Civitas Institute for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of March 2017."

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).
Sheila McLean, Plaintiff, v. Bank of America, N.A., Nationstar Mortgage LLC, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., solely in its capacity as trustee for the Securitized Asset Backed Receivables, LLC 2005-FR5 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-FR5, Defendants.

No. COA16-97

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 1, 2016

AFFIRMED.
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HERNAN ISMAEL DELGADO , Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General , Respondent. No. 03-74442 Agency No. A078-461-226 ORDER

KOZINSKI , Chief Judge: Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit. 

# FILED SEP 02 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION


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, each of the undersigned officers of PureDepth, Inc.
do hereby certify that:





(a) the
quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PureDepth, Inc. for the three months
ended  (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(b)
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of PureDepth,
Inc.







Dated:  June
12, 2009







/s/
Andrew L. Wood





Mr.
Andrew L. Wood, Chief Executive Officer and Director











/s/
Joseph A. Moran





Mr.
Joseph A. Moran, Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 31.1  Section 302 Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  I, Paul Tidwell, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Innocap, 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 registrant 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 registrant and have:  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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 report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.  5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrant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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting.  Date: June 27, 2011  /s/ Paul Tidwell Paul Tidwell Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00211-CV

Donald Ray McCray, Appellant

v.

Lee Glass, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 345TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GN-07-000841, HONORABLE STEPHEN YELENOSKY, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

On August 15, 2008, we notified appellant Donald Ray McCray that the appellate

record in this case did not appear to contain a final or otherwise appealable order. This Court’s

jurisdiction is limited to the review of final judgments and certain interlocutory orders signed by the

trial court. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 51.012, .014 (West 2008); see also

Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). McCray’s written response to this

notice fails to demonstrate that a final or otherwise appealable order has been signed by the trial

court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

__________________________________________

 Diane M. Henson, Justice 

Before Justices Patterson, Waldrop and Henson

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: October 3, 2008
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3973 

To amend section 530D of title 28, United States Code. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 29, 2014 

Mr. DESANTIS (for himself, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. FARENTHOLD, Mr. CHABOT, 

Mr. BYRNE, Mr. SALMON, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. STEWART, Mr. WEBER

of Texas, Mr. POSEY, Mr. COLLINS of Georgia, Mr. AMODEI, Mr. 

MASSIE, Mr. LAMALFA, Mrs. LUMMIS, Mr. CHAFFETZ, Mr. 

BRIDENSTINE, Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, 

Mr. ROONEY, Mr. SCHWEIKERT, Mr. LANKFORD, and Mr. STUTZMAN) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend section 530D of title 28, United States Code. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Faithful Execution of 

5 the Law Act of 2014’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 530D OF TITLE 28, 

7 UNITED STATES CODE. 

8 Section 530D(a)(1)(A) of title 28, United States 

9 Code, is amended— 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3973 IH

1 (1) by inserting ‘‘or any other Federal officer’’ 

2 before ‘‘establishes or implements a formal or infor3 mal policy’’; and 

4 (2) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘on the grounds 

5 that such provision is unconstitutional’’ and insert6 ing ‘‘and state the grounds for such policy’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DAVID LEE HILL, a/k/a Bo,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (1:96-cr-00370-2)

Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: September 23, 2008

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Lee Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Leslie Bonner McClendon,

Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

David Lee Hill seeks to appeal the district court’s order

reducing his sentence from 260 months’ imprisonment to 210 months’

imprisonment under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582 (West 2000 & Supp. 2008). In

criminal cases, the defendant must file the notice of appeal within

ten days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A);

see United States v. Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000)

(holding that § 3582 proceeding is criminal in nature and ten-day

appeal period applies). With or without a motion, upon a showing

of excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may grant an

extension of up to thirty days to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R.

App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes, 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th

Cir. 1985).

The district court entered its order on April 18, 2008.

The notice of appeal was filed on June 9, 2008. Because Hill

failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension

of the appeal period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis

and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
STATE of North Carolina v. Terrence Lowell HYMAN

No. 245A08-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2017

Mary Carla Babb, Assistant Attorney General, Nicholaos Vlahos, Assistant Attorney General, Valerie Mitchell Asbell, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*524Nicholas C. Woomer-Deters, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Hyman, Terrence Lowell.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 9th of March 2017 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of May 2017."

Upon consideration of the petition for discretionary review, filed by State of NC on the 28th of March 2017 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and the Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues is

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of May 2017."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 28th of March 2017 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:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of May 2017."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4030 Engrossed in House (EH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4030

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 18640 NW 2nd Avenue in Miami, Florida, as the ``Father Richard 
                 Marquess-Barry Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. FATHER RICHARD MARQUESS-BARRY POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 18640 NW 2nd Avenue in Miami, Florida, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Father Richard Marquess-Barry Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Father 
Richard Marquess-Barry Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 8, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4030

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 18640 NW 2nd Avenue in Miami, Florida, as the ``Father Richard 
                 Marquess-Barry Post Office Building''.
```
---

---

EXHIBIT 12.2

CERTIFICATION

|I, Daniel
  Yelin, certify that:
|--------------------------------
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                

---

---

| |  | b) | Any fraud,
  whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have
  a significant role in the companys internal control over financial
  reporting.
| |  | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|June 24,
  2004
|---------------
|               
|               
|               
|               
|               
|               

---

---
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

COMPREHENSIVE DRUG TESTING,

INC.,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 05-10067

D.C. No. MISC-04-234-SI

ORDER

MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL

PLAYERS ASSOCIATION,

 Petitioner - Appellee,

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Respondent - Appellant.

No. 05-15006

D.C. No. CV-04-00707-JCM

FILED

SEP 30 2008

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 05-10067

In re: SEARCH WARRANTS

EXECUTED ON APRIL 8, 2004 AT

CDT, INC.,

SEAL 1,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

SEAL 2,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 05-55354

D.C. No. CV-04-02887-FMC

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that

this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel

opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135896 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 135896 

 COA: 279144 

Bay CC: 98-001264-FH

 98-001265-FH 

RICHARD CONRAD WITBRODT, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 11, 2008 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s0828 

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 9, 2008 

 Clerk