alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

 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.

1

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 3, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________________

No. 03-60849

Summary Calendar

__________________________

LOUISE MCKENZIE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RIVER REGION MEDICAL CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

___________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

(No. 3:99-CV-366)

___________________________________________________

Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

In July 1998, the River Region Medical Corporation (“River Region”) discharged Louise

McKenzie from employment for allegedly racially harassing employees whom she supervised.

McKenzie filed a suit against River Region, two supervisors, and Quorum Health Group, Inc.

(“Quorum”), a company allegedly involved in the day-to-day operations of River Region. After her
2

termination, McKenzie alleged a variety of state and federal claims against the Defendants. The

district court granted summary judgment to the Defendants. McKenzie appeals that ruling.

We are unable to reach the merits of McKenzie’s arguments; her appellate brief precludes us

from doing so. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(9) states that an appellant’s brief must

contain an argument section with “contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the

authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies.” Based on Rule 28, this Court has

on several occasions declined to consider the merits of a claim where an appellant’s brief lacked

“logical argumentation or citation to authority.” See, e.g., Alameda Films SA de CV v. Authors

Rights Restoration Corp. Inc., 331 F.3d 472 (5th Cir. 2003); Meadowbriar Home for Children, Inc.

v. Gunn, 81 F.3d 521, 532 (5th Cir. 1996); Randall v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 13 F.3d 888, 911 (5th

Cir. 1994). We have noted that “it is not the function of the Court of Appeals to comb the record

for possible error, but rather it is counsel’s responsibility to point out distinctly and specifically the

precise matters complained of, with appropriate citations to the page or pages in the record where

the matters appear.” United States v. Martinez-Mercado, 888 F.2d 1484, 1492 (5th Cir. 1992). 

The dearth of citation to the record, and the utter lack of references to evidence supporting

McKenzie’s claims constitute a violation of Rule 28(a)(9). McKenzie argues repeatedly that she

submitted “credible” and “substantial” evidence in support of her claims, but then fails to specify the

content of this evidence, much less where it can be located in the record. The scant references to the

record identify only extraneous mattersthat fail to provide any logical argumentation. In the absence

of an adequate brief, we must, and do, AFFIRM the district court’s ruling.
STATE of North Carolina, Plaintiff, v. Jermaine D. CARSON, Jr. Defendant.

No. 154P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 18, 2017

Jermaine D. Carson, Jr., for Carson, Jermaine Derrick (Jr.).

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

*57***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the application filed by Defendant on the 18th of May 2017 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Buncombe County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of May 2017."

Ervin, J. recused
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-6399

JOVAN L. HASKELL, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

 Respondent – Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District 

Judge. (3:06-cv-00713-HEH) 

Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: October 24, 2008 

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Jovan L. Haskell, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Jovan L. Haskell seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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. See 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 Haskell

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 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 12/17/96

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

TONYA LEE WELLMAKER,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 96-6137

(D.C. No. CR-95-166-L)

(W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, KELLY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.**

Defendant-appellant Tonya Lee Wellmaker pleaded guilty to being a felon in

possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and was sentenced to 92 months

imprisonment and three years supervised release. In determining the sentence, the district

court enhanced her base offense level by two levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4)

because the firearm was stolen. In the district court, Ms. Wellmaker unsuccessfully
- 2 -

argued that the firearm was not stolen because it was concealed in a black bag (that she

intentionally removed from the vehicle of a former boyfriend so as to deprive him of it). 

Our jurisdiction to reconsider this point on appeal arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18

U.S.C. § 3742(a). We review the district court’s factual finding of a stolen firearm for

clear error; any disputed legal issues are reviewed de novo. United States v. Rowlett, 23

F.3d 300, 303 (10th Cir. 1994).

The record contains ample evidence that Ms. Wellmaker intended to steal the bag

and its contents, including the firearm. The “firearm was stolen--” that she may have

been unaware of the firearm’s presence in the bag initially or that she later sought to

return it to its owner are legally insignificant facts. U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4) lacks a

scienter requirement, it is in effect a strict liability sentencing enhancement. U.S.S.G.

§ 2K2.1(b)(4), comment. n.19; United States v. Murphy, 96 F.3d 846, 848-49 (6th Cir.

1996); United States v. Sanders, 990 F.2d 582, 584 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 878

(1993).

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-1831

In Re: JAMES CHRISTOPHER ANDERSON, on behalf of himself 

and all others similarly situated, 

 Petitioner. 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:08-ct-03046-D) 

Submitted: October 14, 2008 Decided: October 16, 2008 

Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

James Christopher Anderson, Petitioner Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

James Christopher Anderson petitions for a writ of 

mandamus, seeking an order that North Carolina allow conjugal 

visits for its married prisoners. Mandamus is a drastic remedy 

to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United 

States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). “The courts are 

extremely reluctant to grant a writ of mandamus.” In re Ford 

Motor Co., 751 F.2d 274, 275 (8th Cir. 1984). In seeking 

mandamus relief, Anderson carries the heavy burden of showing 

that he has no other adequate means to obtain the relief 

requested, and that his right to such relief is clear and 

indisputable. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Baker, 860 

F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). The Constitution does not 

guarantee conjugal visitation privileges to incarcerated 

persons. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95-96 (1987). 

Accordingly, we deny the mandamus petition. 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. 

PETITION DENIED
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-40071

Conference Calendar

 

KELVIN B. MORGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

T. C. FORD, Dr. Coffield Unit;

TDCJ-ID,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:93-CV-647

- - - - - - - - - -

October 24, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kelvin B. Morgan (#559701) appeals from the denial of his

postjudgment motion requesting relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

60(b) based on excusable neglect for not filing a timely appeal. 

Morgan argues that his failure to file a timely notice of appeal

was caused by excusable neglect. We have reviewed the record and

briefs of the parties and AFFIRM the magistrate judge’s denial
No.

- 2 -

because the magistrate judge did not abuse his discretion. 

Morgan v. Ford, No. 6:93-CV-647 (Dec. 5, 1995).

AFFIRMED.
STATE v. Somchoi NOONSAB

131P16-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 22, 2016

Mr. Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Ms. N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

Mr. Somchoi Noonsab, Pro se.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th of August 2016 by Defendant to Dismiss:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 22nd of September 2016."
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3973 Engrossed in House (EH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3973

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

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

    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 ``Faithful Execution of the Law Act of 
2014''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 530D OF TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE.

    Section 530D(a)(1)(A) of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``or any other Federal officer'' before 
        ``establishes or implements a formal or informal policy''; and
            (2) in clause (i), by striking ``on the grounds that such 
        provision is unconstitutional'' and inserting ``and state the 
        grounds for such policy''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 13, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3973

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

         To amend section 530D of title 28, United States Code.
```
**EXHIBIT 99.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO****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 Kitty Hawk, Inc. (the “***Company***”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2002, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “***Report***”), I, Drew Keith, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1)

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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

|         |   |      |
|--------------|--------|-----------|
| May 12, 2003 |   | By:  | /s/ DREW KEITH |
|         |   |      |  |
|         |   |      |       **Drew Keith**      **ChiefFinancial Officer** |

 

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                            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 CPI Holdco, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending April 2, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, O. Joe Caldarelli,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

/s/ O. Joe Caldarelli

O. Joe Caldarelli
Chief Executive Officer
May 14, 2004

<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                            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 CPI Holdco, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending April 2, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joel Littman, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Joel Littman

Joel Littman
Chief Financial Officer
May 14, 2004
STATE v. Walter LEMLEY, Jr.

No. 62P16-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Walter Lemley, Badin, for Lemley, Walter (Jr.).

Kristin Jo Uicker, Attorney at Law, for State of North Carolina.

N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 25th of February 2016 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of March 2016."
STATE v. Gregory Alan ADAMS, Jr.

81P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 14, 2017

Emily H. Davis, Assistant Appellate Defender, Gregory Alan Adams, for Adams, Gregory Alan (Jr.).

Ryan Frank Haigh, Special Deputy Attorney General, Ben R. David, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 13th of March 2017 by Defendant to Stay and Legal Notice:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of March 2017."
# C_2008064EN.01006403.xml

| 8.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/64

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 12 December 2007 — Kerelov v Commission

(Case F-111/07)

(Officials - Manifest inadmissibility - Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance)

(2008/C 64/106)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Georgi Kerelov (Pazardzhik, Bulgaria) (represented by: A. Kerelov, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Re:

Application for the annulment of EPSO's decision of 14 December 2006 not to ask the applicant to fill out an application form with a view to his possible admission to a competition and for compensation for the damage he has suffered.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Each party shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

---
Exhibit 32.2

Certification



Pursuant
to the requirement set forth in Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, David E. Hooston hereby certifies as follows:



| | 1. | He is the duly appointed Chief Financial Officer of Placer Sierra Bancshares, a California corporation (the Company).
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on his knowledge, the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, and to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.2
(the Periodic Report), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d), of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of this 28th day of October
2005.



PLACER SIERRA BANCSHARES/s/ David E. HoostonDavid E. Hooston Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 28, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 56736]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19294]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Institutes of Electrical and Electronics 
Engineers

    Notice is hereby given that, on September 8, 2005, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Institute of Electrical and 
Electronics Engineers (``IEEE'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing additions or changes to its standards development 
activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending 
the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to 
actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, 5 new 
standards have been initiated and 5 existing standards are being 
revised. More detail regarding these changes can be found at http://standards.ieee.org/standardswire/sba/08-12-05.html.
    On September 17, 2004, IEEE filed its original notification 
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of 
the Act on November 3, 2004 (69 FR 64105).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on July 1, 
2005. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act of August 11, 2005 (70 FR 46890).

Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 05-19294 Filed 9-27-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**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 Triangle Petroleum Corporation (the
      "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 31, 2007, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      Shaun Toker, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
      U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      to my
      knowledge that:





(1)
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                and





(2)
            The
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
                Company.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Triangle Petroleum Corporation and will be retained by Triangle Petroleum
      Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
      staff
      upon request.




/s/
                Shaun
                TokerShaun
                TokerChief
                Financial
                OfficerDecember 11, 2007
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 12

- 00079

- CV

ANTHONY E. GILL APPELLANT

V.

A.B.O.D.E. TREATMENT INC. APPELLEE

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

FROM THE 17TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGM ENT

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

We have considered “ Appellant ’ s Motion For Dismissal Of Appeal .” It is

the court = s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

Costs of the appeal shall be paid by appellant, for which let execution

issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DELIVERED: April 5 , 2012

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.