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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6586

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ADRIAN LAMONT JETER, a/k/a Man,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Spartanburg. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (7:03-cr-01094-TMC-1; 7:16-cv-02242-

TMC)

Submitted: September 13, 2018 Decided: September 18, 2018

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Adrian Lamont Jeter, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Adrian Lamont Jeter seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 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 Jeter 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 this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
Jonathan E. BRUNSON, Plaintiff, v. OFFICE OF THE 12TH JUDICIARY, Office of the District Attorney for the 12th Prosecutorial District, the Office of the Cumberland County Sheriff, North Carolina Department of Social Services, North Carolina Department of Public Safety, North Carolina Department of Justice, North Carolina Department of Human Resources, and the State of North Carolina, Defendants.

No. COA18-573

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 18, 2018

DISMISSED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF RADIO UNICA CORP. FOR YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIERTY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       2,396,044
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,304,089
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,941,124
<PP&E>                                      17,434,918
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             126,259,410
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,206,138
<BONDS>                                    117,732,564
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                (23,459,939)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               126,259,410
<SALES>                                     16,217,180
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            16,217,180
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               57,546,181
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        (14,053,053)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (54,746,649)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (311,989)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (55,058,638)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (55,058,638)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (582,080)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (582,080)


</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Eddie SIMMONS.

No. 2003-KH-1637.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 29, 2003.

In re Simmons, Eddie;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 02-6473.

Granted for the sole purpose of transferring the application to the district court for its consideration. The district court is directed to provide this Court with a copy of its ruling.
1 ... S eeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO . 2- 07- 352- CR NO. 2 - 07 - 35 4- CR B R YA N R AYR OE AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 355TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F HO O D CO UN TY

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

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- A p p e l l a n t B rya n R a yR o e ap p e a l s f rom tw o co n v i c ti o n s fo r i n d e c e n c yw i th a c h ild

– e x p o s u r e . T h e t r ia l c o u rt c o n v ic t e d h im in e a c h c a s e a n d s e n t e n c e d h im t o c onf i nem entoft en yea r s’ i n e ac h c as e, w i t h t he se nt enc est o r un consecuti vel y. I n each cas e, A ppel l ant ’ s court - appo i nt ed appel l at e counsel has file d a m o tio n to w ith d ra w a s c o u n s e l a n d a b rie f in s u p p o rto f th a t m o tio n . In th e b ri e fs , c o u n s e l a v e rs th a t, i n h i s p ro fe s s i o n a l o p i n i o n , th e s e a p p e a l s a re2 ... 3 8 6 U .S . 7 3 8 , 8 7 S . C t. 1 3 9 6 (1 9 6 7 ). 3 ... S e eS taffo rd v. S tate , 8 1 3 S .W .2 d 5 0 3 , 5 1 1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ); Mays v. State, 904 S . W . 2d 920, 922– 23 ( Tex. A pp. — FortW ort h 1 995 , no p e t.). 4 ... S eePen so n v. Ohi o, 488 U. S. 75, 82–8 3, 109 S. Ct . 346, 351 (1 9 8 8 ).

5 ... S ee Bledsoe v. State, 178 S . W . 3 d 8 2 4 , 8 27– 28 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 2 0 0 5 ). 2 fr i v o l o u s. C o u n se l ’s b ri e fs a n d m o tio n s m e e t t h e req u i rem e n ts o f A nder s v. Ca lif o r n ia 2 by p r es ent i ng a pr of es si ona l eva l uat i on oft he r ec or dsde m ons t r at i ng w hy t her e ar e no ar guab l e gr oun ds f orr el i ef . A l t hou gh A ppel l antw as gi ven an opport uni t y t o f i l e a pr o s e b r i ef , heha s notdones o. A f t er an appel l ant ’ s court - appo i nt ed coun sel f i l es a m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw o n t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e a p p e a l i s f r i v o l o u s a n d f u l f i l l s t h e r e q u i r em ent s of A n ders , t hi s cou rti s obl i gat ed t o undert ak e an i nde pen den tex am i nat i on oft he r ec or d. 3O nl y t hen m ay w e gr antcounsel ’ s m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw . 4 W e have car ef ul l y r evi ew ed coun sel ’ s br i ef s and t he r ecor ds. W e agr ee w i t h c ouns el t hatt hes e a ppe al s ar e w hol l y f r i vol ous and w i t hout m er i t ; w e f i nd nothi ng i n t he r ecor ds t hatar guab l y m i ght suppo rtt he appeal s. 5 A cc or di ngl y, w e gr antcounsel ’ s m ot i ons t o w i t hdr aw and af f i r m t he t r i al court ’ s j udg m ent s. P E R CU R I AM PA N EL: DA U PH I N O T, W A LKER, an d M C C O Y, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b)3

DEL I VERE D: F e br ua r y 26, 2009
Exhibit
32.1





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 Now Auto Group, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned,
Scott Miller, Chief Executive Officer/ Financial Officer and Chief Operating
Officer of the Company, certify in my capacities as officer of the Company,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our 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 as of the dates
and for the periods expressed in the Report.





/s/ Scott MillerScott
      MillerChief
      Executive OfficerFebruary
      15, 2009/s/ Faith ForbisFaith
      ForbisChief
      Financial OfficerFebruary
      15, 2009
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4981 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a religious exception 

to the requirement that certain tax return preparers file returns on 

magnetic media. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 25, 2010 

Mr. PETERSON (for himself, Mr. WALZ, Mr. PENCE, Mr. PITTS, Mr. 

LOEBSACK, and Mr. LUETKEMEYER) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

a religious exception to the requirement that certain tax 

return preparers file returns on magnetic media. 

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

3 SECTION 1. RELIGIOUS EXCEPTION TO MAGNETIC MEDIA 

4 FILING REQUIREMENT. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (3) of section 6011(e) 

6 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by add7 ing at the end the following new subparagraph: 

8 ‘‘(D) EXEMPTION FOR RELIGIOUS REA9 SONS.—The Secretary may exempt from the reVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:48 Mar 27, 2010 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H4981.IH H4981

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4981 IH

1 quirement of subparagraph (A) any tax return 

2 preparer who— 

3 ‘‘(i) is a member of a recognized reli4 gious sect or division thereof, and 

5 ‘‘(ii) is an adherent of established te6 nets or teachings of such sect or division 

7 by reason of which the preparer is con8 scientiously opposed to using magnetic 

9 media.’’. 

10 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

11 this section shall apply to returns filed after the date of 

12 the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
GARY REED AKA DAVID 

PHILLIPS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-4236

_____________________________/

Opinion filed April 6, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County.

Brantley S. Clark, Judge.

Pro Se, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Sharon Traxler, Assistant Attorney General, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED.

WETHERELL, MAKAR, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
#### Jethro WALKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D03-1558.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 2, 2003.

Appellant, pro se.

Charlie Crist, Attorney General, and Giselle Lylen Rivera, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the appellant’s response to the Court’s order of April 29, 2003, the Court has determined that the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Thus, the Court lacks jurisdiction to review the order on appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed.

DISMISSED.

ERVIN, KAHN and HAWKES, JJ., concur.
1

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Appellate case name: Talawrence Donyea Tennell v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-17-00571-CR

Trial court case number: 15-01993-CRF-85

Trial court: 85th District Court of Brazos County

This Court issued a memorandum opinion in this appeal on December 31, 2018, 

affirming the judgment of conviction. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals 

granted Appellant’s petition for discretionary review and issued an opinion

vacating this Court’s judgment and remanding the case for this Court to address the 

following three issues:

(1) whether appellant forfeited his hearsay claim and, if not, then; (2) 

whether [State’s Exhibit 137, a medical intake form] constitutes 

“matters observed by law enforcement personnel” under Rule [of 

Evidence] 803(8), and if so, then (3) whether, under Cole [v. State, 

839 S.W.2d 798 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990)], the exhibit would still be 

admissible as a business record under [Rule] 803(6) or as a medical 

record under [Rule] 803(4).

Tennell v. State, PD-0120-19, 2019 WL 2612743, at *2 (Tex. Crim. App. June 26, 

2019). 

Appellant has filed a motion to set briefing deadlines on remand, requesting that he 

be permitted to file a brief to address the three specific issues that the Court of 

Appeals has remanded to this Court and asking for briefing deadlines.
2

Appellant’s motion to set briefing deadlines on remand is granted, and the 

following briefing deadlines are set: 

(1) any additional briefing filed by Appellant, addressing the remanded 

issues, must be filed with this Court within 21 days from the date of this 

order, and 

(2) any responsive briefing filed by the State must be filed within 21 days of 

the date that Appellant files his brief.

Appellant also requests that the appeal be set for oral argument. Appellant’s 

request for oral argument will be determined after the additional briefing, if any, is 

filed.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Richard Hightower 

Acting individually 

Date: December 31, 2019
| (1)   | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Technology Holdings, Inc. for                the                quarter ended September 30, 2006 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for                the                quarter ended September 30, 2006, fairly presents in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Technology                Holdings, Inc. . |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   By: | /s/                Sam Medley                                                                            |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  Name:     |  Sam                Medley                                                                          |
|  Title:    |  Principal                Executive Officer,Principal                Financial Officer and Director |
|  Date:     |  November                1, 2006                                                                    |
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ALBERT RAMIREZ, 

 

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 State.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-11-00298-CR

Appeal from the

171st District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20090D03210)

O R D E R

Pending before the Court is Appellant’s motion to supplement the record with the 

reporter’s record with hearings conducted on April 8, 2011. The motion is GRANTED. Further, 

the Court orders the court reporter to prepare and file the supplemental reporter’s record no later 

than June 27, 2014. Appellant’s brief is currently on its second final extension and is due to be 

filed on June 10, 2014. Given that the record is incomplete, the Court has determined that 

Appellant’s brief shall be due 30 days after the date the supplemental reporter’s record is 

filed. The Court discourages the filing of any extension requests to file the supplemental record 

or the Appellant’s brief absent extraordinary circumstances.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of May, 2014.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera and Rodriguez, JJ.
59 CCPA

#### Application of RIDGE TOOL COMPANY.

Patent Appeal No. 8691.

United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.

March 30, 1972.

J. Darrell Douglass, Cleveland, Ohio, attorney of record, for appellant.

S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D. C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D. C., of counsel.

Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN, and LANE, Judges, and MALETZ, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation.

BALDWIN, Judge.

This appeal is from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board1 sustaining the examiner’s refusal to register appellant’s mark RIDGID for measuring tapes and folding rules. As it appears in appellant’s application,2 the mark is somewhat stylized:

RIDGID

[A5654]

Registration was refused in view of the previously registered mark RIGI-TAPE for measuring tape.3 The issue is whether the mark sought to be registered so resembles the previously registered mark as to be likely, when applied to applicant’s goods, to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.4

Appellant argues that the two marks as applied to the goods do not look or sound sufficiently alike to engender a likelihood of confusion. The board, considering the “obvious substantial similarity” between the marks, held that there would be likelihood of confusion.

The prior registration covers goods which are identical to appellant’s tape measures. These tapes clearly flow through the same channels of trade to the same consumers. Considering this factor, as well as the obvious similiarities between the marks, we agree with the board that there is a likelihood of confusion. The decision of the board is therefore affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

. Abstracted at 162 USPQ 638 (1969).

2

. Serial No. 260,621, filed December 7, 1966.

3

. Registration No. 620,371, registered January 31, 1956.

4

. 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d) (1970)
#### Catherine W. REAL, Petitioner, v. Pamela B. FITZGERALD and Scott Fitzgerald, Respondents.

No. 2D03-1741.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 27, 2003.

*952Barry A. Cohen and Kevin J. Darken of Cohen, Jayson & Foster, P.A., Tampa, for petitioner.

No response required for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

We deny the petition for writ of prohibition as being moot, in that the order to show cause has been withdrawn.

GUNTHER, BOBBY W., STONE, BARRY J., and POLEN, MARK E., Associate Judges, concur.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 13

- 00301

- CR

ROBERT RAY MCMULLEN

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS
On Appeal from the 156th District Court of Live Oak County , Texas Trial Cause No. L

- 12

- 0068

- CR

- B

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered t his cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. July 31, 2014
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 200 (Tuesday, October 18, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 60602]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20763]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

October 12, 2005.
    The Department of the Treasury has submitted the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of 
the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau 
Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information 
collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the 
Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 
11000, 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.
    Dates: Written comments should be received on or before November 
17, 2005 to be assured of consideration.

Bureau of Public Debt

    OMB Number: 1535-0091.
    Type of Review: Extension.
    Title: Regulations Governing U.S. Treasury Securities-State and 
Local Government Series.
    Description: The information is requested to establish an investor 
account, issue and redeem securities.
    Respondents: State or Local Government.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 542 hour.
    Clearance Officer: Vicki S. Thorpe, (304) 480-8150, Bureau of the 
Public Debt, 200 Third Street, Parkersburg, West Virginia 26106.
    OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt, (202) 395-7316, Office of 
Management and Budget, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, 
Washington, DC 20503.

Michael A. Robinson,
Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-20763 Filed 10-17-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-39-P
Exhibit
32.1





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 Annual Report of Now Auto Group, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K/A for the three months ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Scott Miller, Chief Executive Officer/ Financial Officer and Chief
Operating Officer of the Company, certify in my capacities as officer of the
Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our
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 as of the dates
and for the periods expressed in the Report.








/s/ Scott
Miller


Scott
Miller


Chief
Executive Officer





March 9,
2010








/s/ Faith
Forbis


Faith
Forbis


Chief
Financial Officer





March 9,
2010