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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1744

LORENZO DOMINIC RICHARDSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

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

Chief District Judge. (5:11-cv-00081-D)

Submitted: February 9, 2012 Decided: December 13, 2012

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lorenzo Dominic Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Lorenzo Dominic Richardson appeals the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). We have reviewed the record 

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Richardson v. North 

Carolina, No. 5:11-cv-00081-D (E.D.N.C. July 5, 2011). We deny 

Richardson’s motion for relief, and 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 COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC INC., 2 COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS INC., 3 Plaintiffs-Appellees, 4
v. NO. 29,167 5 MIGUEL and INGA GUTIERREZ, 6 Defendants-Appellants. 7
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OTERO COUNTY 8 James Waylon Counts, District Judge 9 Clinton W. Marrs 10 Albuquerque, NM 11 for Appellees 12 Miguel Gutierrez 13 Inga Gutierrez 14 La Luz, NM 15 Pro Se Appellants 16
MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 KENNEDY, Judge. 18 Defendants appeal the district court’s denial of their 60(B) motion. We 19 proposed to affirm. Plaintiff filed a memorandum in support of our proposal. 20 Defendants have not responded to our proposal and the time for doing so has passed. 212 Therefore, the judgment is affirmed forthe reasons stated in the calendar notice. 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2

__________________________________ 3 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 4 WE CONCUR: 5

________________________________ 6 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 7

________________________________ 8 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 9
EXHIBIT
32





CLEAN
POWER TECHNOLOGIES INC.





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 on Form 10-Q of Clean Power Technologies
Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending November 30, 2009 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Abdul Mitha,  as President and Principal Executive
Officer of the Company, hereby 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date:
      January 13, 2010
            By:
            /s/Abdul
      MithaName:
      Abdul MithaTitle:
      President (Principal Executive Officer)




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 1350 of Title 18 of the
United States Code 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.





The
foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report pursuant
to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United
States Code and, accordingly, is not being filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission as part of the Report and is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the
Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such
filing.)
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-QSB for the three months ended December 31, 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.





By:
                        /s/
      Scott MillerScott
      MillerChief
      Executive OfficerMay
      20, 2009/s/
      Faith ForbisFaith
      ForbisChief
      Financial OfficerMay
      20, 2009
STATE v. Tilmon Charles GOLPHIN

441A98-4

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 7, 2018

Jay H. Ferguson, Kenneth J. Rose, Attorneys at Law, Durham, for Golphin, Tilmon Charles.

Danielle Marquis Elder, Special Deputy Attorney General, Jonathan P. Babb, Special Counsel to Attorney General, William R. West, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

James E. Williams, Jr., Attorney at Law, Carrboro, Burton Craige, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for N.C. Advocates for Justice.

Robert P. Mosteller, Attorney at Law, for Professors John Charles Boger & Robert P. Mosteller.

Grady Jessup, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Association of Black Lawyers.

Lisa A. Bakale-Wise, Attorney at Law, Irving Joyner, Attorney at Law, Durham, for N.C. State Conference of the NAACP.

Edward Joseph Blocher, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Social Scientists.

Janet Moore, Attorney at Law, for National Association for Public Defense.

Carlos E. Mahoney, Attorney at Law, Durham, Jin Hee Lee, W. Kerrel Murray, Attorneys at Law, Pro Hac Vice, for NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

Cynthia F. Adcock, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Council of Churches.

Jeremy M. Falcone, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Paul F. Khoury, Robert L. Walker, Madeline J. Cohen, Attorneys at Law, Pro Hac Vice, Washington, DC, for Former State and Federal Prosecutors.

*738The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 6th of November 2018 by State of NC:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of November 2018."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001068132
<NAME> SUNDERLAND ACQUISITION CORPORATION
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             416
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   416
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       5000000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       416
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      0.0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0.0
        

</TABLE>
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-1061

___________ Roderick Braswell, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. F. Brown, Captain, East Arkansas * Regional Unit, Arkansas Department * [UNPUBLISHED] of Correction; J. Banks, Assistant * Warden, East Arkansas Regional Unit, * Arkansas Department of Correction; * Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas * Department of Correction; Lt. McGee, * Arkansas Department of Correction, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: April 21, 2000 Filed: April 25, 2000

___________ Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, BOWMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.1 TheHonorable Susan Webber Wright, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Henry L. Jones, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2- Roderick Braswell, an Arkansas inmate, appeals the District Court’s 1 dismissal of his civil rights action following an evidentiary hearing. After careful review of the recordand the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the District Court did not err in dismissing Braswell’s complaint. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
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 Salomon Smith Barney Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P. (the ‘‘Partnership’’) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, Jerry Pascucci, President and Director of Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 Partnership.

/s/ Jerry Pascucci

|
|
|
|

Jerry Pascucci
Citigroup Managed Futures LLC
President and Director

March 31, 2008

|
|
|
|

Date

---
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 18, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-50836 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CARLOS HUMBERTO TAPIA-CARRENO, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-03-Cr-139-ALL

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Carlos Humberto Tapia-Carreno appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Tapia-Carreno contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment. Tapia-Carreno maintains that heNo. 03-50836 -2- pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Tapia-Carreno acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
* 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. 95-31028 Summary Calendar

__________________ SIDNEY MARTS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus CHARLES C. FOTI JR., Sheriff; UNIDENTIFIED PARTY, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CV-1535

- - - - - - - - - - February 22, 1996 Before JOLLY, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Sidney Marts appeals the district court's 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, in which he alleges that prison officials of the Orleans Parish prison system (OPP) denied him meaningful access to the courts by not providing him with an adequate law library. Marts also contends, for the first time on appeal, that the defendants do not provide adequate writing materials to inmate litigants and do not provide inmatesNo. 95-31028 -2- with copies of pleadings for inmate use. To the extent that these allegations comprise new claims of denial of access to the courts, this court need not consider them. See Varnado v. Lynaugh , 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). We have examined the record and determine that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case as frivolous. Appellant did not allege any facts that indicate that he was prejudiced by the alleged lack of access to the courts. See Eason v. Thaler , ___ F.3d ___ (5th Cir. Jan. 17, 1996, No. 95-10316) 1996 WL 15541 at *6.
AFFIRMED.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00025-CR

Edward Flores

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From Criminal District Court No. 1

of Tarrant County (1316196D)

March 13, 2014

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
Exhibit 32.1

Certification

I, Robert H. Lorsch, certify, pursuant to Rule 13(a)-14(b) or Rule 15(d)-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MMRGlobal, Inc. for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2012 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, and (ii) the information contained in such
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of MMRGlobal, Inc.

|/s/ Robert H. Lorsch
|--------------------
|Name:               
|Title:              
|Date:               

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and is not being "filed" as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document for purposes
of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), or otherwise subject to liability under that section.
This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Exchange Act except to the extent that this Exhibit 32.1 is expressly and specifically incorporated by reference in any such filing.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 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.

---
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 11, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 59114]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20341]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 5203]


In the Matter of the Designation of the Moroccan Islamic 
Combatant Group, aka Groupe Islamique Combattant Marocain (GICM), as a 
Foreign Terrorist Organization Pursuant to Section 219 of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act

    Based upon a review of the Administrative Record assembled in this 
matter, and in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary 
of the Treasury, the Secretary of State has concluded that there is a 
sufficient factual basis to find that the relevant circumstances 
described in section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as 
amended (8 U.S.C. 1189, hereinafter ``INA''), exist with respect to the 
Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group, aka Groupe Islamique Combattant 
Marocain (GICM).
    Therefore, effective upon date of publication in the Federal 
Register, the Secretary of State hereby designates that organization as 
a foreign terrorist organization pursuant to section 219(a) of the INA.

    Dated: October 3, 2005.
Henry A. Crumpton,
Coordinator for Counterterrorism, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 05-20341 Filed 10-7-05; 5:00 pm]
BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
| 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. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                               |                                                                     |
|------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date:  December 15, 2010 | By:  /s/ James G. Borem                                   |
|                               | James G. Borem                                                           |
|                               | President and Chief Executive Officerand Interim Chief Financial Officer |
#### K-MART CORPORATION, Petitioner, Cross-Respondent, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, Cross-Petitioner, and Truck Drivers, Oil Drivers, Filling Station and Platform Workers, Local 705, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Intervening Respondent, Intervening Cross-Petitioner.

Nos. 97-1487, 97-1958.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 19, 1997.

Decided Sept. 16, 1997.

*573Jon Zimring (submitted), Holleb & Coff, Chicago, IL, John W. Noble, Jr., Chicago, IL, for K-Mart Corporation.

Elizabeth Kinney, National Labor Relations Board, Region 13, Chicago, IL, Aileen A. Armstrong, Howard E. Perlstein, Vincent Falvo, National Labor Relations Board, Appellate Court, Enforcement Litigation, Washington, DC, for National Labor Relations Board in No. 97-1487.

Aileen A. Armstrong (submitted), National Labor Relations Board, Appellate court, Enforcement Litigation, Washington, DC, Glenn A. Zipp, National Labor Relations Board, Region 13, Peoria, IL, for National Labor Relations Board in No. 97-1958.

Peggy A. Hillman, Indianapolis, IN, Thomas R. Carpenter, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 705, Chicago, IL, for Truck Drivers, Oil Drivers, Filling Station and Platform Workers’ Union Local 705.

Before CUDAHY, ESCHBACH and RIPPLE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is a successive appeal. We shall assume familiarity with our earlier decision in this case. See *K-Mart Corp. v. NLRB,*62 F.3d 209 (7th Cir.1995). In that decision, we remanded this case to the Board because it previously had failed to provide a sufficient analysis of the evidence that several employees were photographed by persons associated with the union campaign effort. On remand, the Board examined the evidence of record and concluded that it was insufficient to establish objectionable conduct. In the Board’s view, the testimony of the four individuals who testified was insufficient to establish that the photographing interfered with employee free choice in the election.

After considering the arguments of counsel in their respective briefs, the court does not believe that there is need for further oral argument. We are further of the view that the proceedings of the Board upon remand are in compliance with our earlier direction and that the conclusion of the Board is supported by substantial evidence. Its decision represents a reasonable exercise of its discretion and expertise in assessing the impact of conditions surrounding an election. We must recognize and pay due deference to the “Board’s special function of applying the provisions of the Act to the complexities of industrial life.” *NLRB v. P*I*E Nationwide, Inc.,*923 F.2d 506, 513 (7th Cir.1991) (quoting *NLRB v. Erie Resistor Corp.,*373 U.S. 221, 236, 83 S.Ct. 1139, 1149, 10 L.Ed.2d 308 (1963)).

Accordingly, the petition for review is denied and the order of the board is enforced. The Board may recover its costs in this court.
EXHIBIT 23(a)
                                                                   -------------





                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS'


     The Board of Directors
     Insilco Holding Co.:

     We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement Nos.
     333-61809 and 333-61811 on Form S-8, and registration Nos. 333-63563 and
     333-65039 on Form S-3 of Insilco Holding Co. of our report dated February
     2, 2001, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Insilco Holding Co.
     and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2000, and 1999, and the related
     consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' deficit, and cash
     flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,
     2000, and the related schedule, which report appears in the December 31,
     2000, annual report on Form 10-K of Insilco Holding Co.

     /s/ KPMG LLP
     ---------------------------
     Columbus, Ohio
     March 27, 2001