alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAMON J. CLAIBORNE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

RYAN D. MCCARTHY, Acting Secretary 

of the Army, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 18-36023 

D.C. No. 3:15-cv-01192-BR 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of Oregon

Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submission Withdrawn December 11, 2019

Resubmitted March 12, 2020

Seattle, Washington

Before: GRABER and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and EZRA,** District Judge.

Plaintiff Damon J. Claiborne appeals the district court’s grant of summary 

judgment in favor of the Secretary of the Army. The district court upheld the 

Army’s administrative determination to involuntarily separate Plaintiff just months 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable David A. Ezra, United States District Judge for the 

District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.

FILED

MAR 12 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

before he qualified for retirement benefits. On de novo review, Garris v. FBI, 937 

F.3d 1284, 1291 (9th Cir. 2019), we affirm.

1. The decision by the Army to discharge Plaintiff was not illegally 

retroactive. Plaintiff could have been discharged under preexisting regulations

promulgated by the Army, such as Army Regulation 635-200, because those 

regulations allow the Army to change its mind about separation decisions. 

Furthermore, a dismissal from the Army is not a criminal penalty, so double 

jeopardy principles are not at issue. 

2. Plaintiff waived the argument that the new rule was facially void, as 

distinct from whether the new rule was being applied retroactively in an improper 

way. Plaintiff conceded the issue below, and the district court relied on that 

concession. The district court ruled that Plaintiff abandoned his claim that Army 

Directive 2013-21 and ALARACT should be invalidated under the APA. The 

court did not err in concluding that this argument was waived.

3. The Army discharged Plaintiff for his conviction of child molestation, not 

for a generalized “proclivity” for sexual misbehavior. The Army Board for 

Correction of Military Records used the word “proclivity” once in its decision, but 

a single appearance of that word did not change the clear basis of the Army’s 

decision. Furthermore, the Army’s real ground for discharging Plaintiff (his felony 
3

conviction) was supported by substantial evidence.

AFFIRMED.
STATE of North Carolina v. William David GIBSON

No. COA18-454

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: January 15, 2019

DISMISSED IN PART. VACATED IN PART. REMANDED.
This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations fr om the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3
v. NO. 34,338 4 JOSE OROZCO-LUJAN, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LUNA COUNTY 7 Daniel Viramontes, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 D. Eric Hannum 12 Albuquerque, NM 13 for Appellant 14 MEMORANDUM OPINION 15 GARCIA, Judge. 16 {1} Defendant Jose Orozco-Lujan (Defendant) appeals from the district court’s 17 denial of his motion to suppress evidence. [RP 191–92; DS 2] Following the district 182 court’s denial of Defendant’s motion, De fendant entered a conditional guilty plea to 1 distribution of marijuana or synthetic cannabinoids. [RP 196, 200–02; DS 2] In this 2 Court’s second notice of proposed disposition, we proposed to affirm the denial of 3 Defendant’s motion to suppress and his c onviction. [CN 1, 6–7] Defendant filed a 4 memorandum in opposition, which we havegiven due consideration. Remaining 5 unpersuaded, we affirm. 6 {2} Defendant asserts in his memorandum in opposition that his conviction must 7 be reversed, because there was no testimony regarding whether the trained dog alerted 8 differently to a controlled substance thanto a concealed person. [MIO 2–3] Thus, 9 Defendant argues, the fact that the dog alerted first to Defendant’s vehicle, then to his 10 seat lacks “any meaningful evidentiaryvalue[.]” [MIO 2–3] Defendant does not 11 explain how a lack of specificity about the type of contraband indicated by the dog 12 affects reasonable suspicion or why further detention based on the dog sniff was 13 unreasonable. We therefore conclude Defe ndant has failed to point out any actual 14 errors in fact or in law with this Court’s notice. See Hennessy v. Duryea , 15 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly 16 held that, in summary calendar cases, th e burden is on the party opposing the proposed 17 disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law.”). 18 {3} Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in our notice of proposed disposition and 193 herein, we affirm De fendant’s conviction. 1

{4} IT IS SO ORDERED. 2

_____________ ___________________ 3 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 4 WE CONCUR: 5

_______________________________ 6 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 7

_______________________________ 8 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 9
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                          76,015
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                76,015
<PP&E>                                          17,013
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,272
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 178,846
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          283,235
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    16,817,500
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,659,458
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   178,846
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               803,311
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (908,475)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (908,475)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00


</TABLE>
Exhibit 12.1

STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF RATIOS



|                                                                     |  |                                |   |  |         |  |         |  |         |  |        
|-------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------ | - |  | ------- |  | ------- |  | ------- |  | -------
|                                                                     |  | FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
|                                                                     |  | 2007                           |   |  | 2006    |  | 2005    |  | 2004    |  | 2003   
|Fixed Charges:                                                       |  |                                |   |  |         |  |         |  |         |  |        
|Interest Expense                                                     |  | 81,516                         |   |  | 52,472  |  | 33,971  |  | 4,729   |  | 6,534  
|Assumed interest element in rent                                     |  | 2,675                          |   |  | 1,452   |  | 1,314   |  | 761     |  | 459    
|                                                                     |  |                                |   |  |         |  |         |  |         |  |        
|Total fixed charges:                                                 |  | 84,191                         |   |  | 53,924  |  | 35,285  |  | 5,490   |  | 6,993  
|Preference security dividend                                         |  |                               |   |  |        |  |        |  | 6,775   |  | 6,591  
|                                                                     |  |                                |   |  |         |  |         |  |         |  |        
|Total fixed charges and preference security dividends                |  | 84,191                         |   |  | 53,924  |  | 35,285  |  | 12,265  |  | 13,584 
|Earnings:                                                            |  |                                |   |  |         |  |         |  |         |  |        
|(Loss) income from continuing operations before income taxes         |  | (42,263                        | ) |  | 207,197 |  | 304,589 |  | 173,444 |  | 190,314
|Fixed charges (per above)                                            |  | 84,191                         |   |  | 53,924  |  | 35,285  |  | 5,490   |  | 6,993  
|                                                                     |  |                                |   |  |         |  |         |  |         |  |        
|Total earnings                                                       |  | 41,928                         |   |  | 261,121 |  | 339,874 |  | 178,934 |  | 197,307
|                                                                     |  |                                |   |  |         |  |         |  |         |  |        
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges and preference security dividends |  | 0.5 X                          |   |  | 4.8 X   |  | 9.6 X   |  | 14.6 X  |  | 14.5 X
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 5, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58221-58222]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19992]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


Technological Advisory Council

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this 
notice advises interested persons of the second meeting of the 
Technological Advisory Council (``Council'') under its charter renewed 
as of November 19, 2004.

DATES: October 27, 2005 at 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Commission Meeting Room (TW-C305), Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffery Goldthorp, (202) 418-1096 
(voice), (202) 418-2989 (TTY), or email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0a406f6c6c6f7873244d65666e7e6265787a4a6c6969246d657c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="87cde2e1e1e2f5fea9c0e8ebe3f3efe8f5f7c7e1e4e4a9e0e8f1">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Increasing innovation and rapid advances in 
technology have accelerated changes in the ways that telecommunications 
services are provided to, and accessed by, users of communications 
services. The Federal Communications Commission must remain abreast of 
new developments in technologies and related communications to fulfill 
its responsibilities under the Communications Act. At this third 
meeting under the Council's new charter, the Council will consider ways 
that emerging technologies can improve communications resiliency. The 
Federal Communications Commission will attempt to accommodate as many 
persons as possible. Admittance,

[[Page 58222]]

however, will be limited to the seating available. Unless so requested 
by the Council's Chair, there will be no public oral participation, but 
the public may submit written comments to Jeffery Goldthorp, the 
Federal Communications Commission's Designated Federal Officer for the 
Technological Advisory Council, before the meeting. Mr. Goldthorp's e-
mail address is <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9cd6f9fafaf9eee5b2dbf3f0f8e8f4f3eeecdcfaffffb2fbf3ea"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4b012e2d2d2e3932650c24272f3f2324393b0b2d2828652c243d">[email protected]</span></a>. Mail delivery address is: 
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 7-A325, 
Washington, DC 20554.

    Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-19992 Filed 10-4-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
CERTIFICATIONS





I, William D. Kirkland, certify that;





(1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Collexis
		Holdings, Inc.;





(2) Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;





(3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
		information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
		the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small
		business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;





(4) The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I
		are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
		procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
		small business issuer and have:





a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
		caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
		supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business
		issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
		within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is
		being prepared;





b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business
		issuer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 small business
		issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
		small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business
		issuers fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
		materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small
		business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and





(5) The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I
		have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of the internal control
		over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the
		audit committee of small business issuer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 small business issuer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 small business
		issuers internal control over financial reporting.





Date: May 21, 2007





/s/ William D. Kirkland

By: William D. Kirkland

Title: Chief Executive Officer







---
STATE v. Tony Savalis SUMMERS

328A11-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 16, 2019

Shelagh R. Kenney, Attorney at Law, M. Gordon Widenhouse, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Summers, Tony Savalis.

Steven Cole, Assistant District Attorney, Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, J. Douglas Henderson, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

Jonathan E. Broun, Attorney at Law, Durham.

M. Gordan Widenhouse, Jr., Attorney at Law.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 28th of November 2018 to Withdraw as Counsel and Allow the Office of the Appellate Defender to Appoint Substitute Counsel:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of January 2019."
#### Lynette Mackley DeWALT, Appellant, v. Stephen B. PARSONS, Respondent.

No. WD 62065.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

July 29, 2003.

Roger M. Driskill, Liberty, MO, for Appellant.

David B. Sexton, Gladstone, MO, for Respondent.

Before PAUL M. SPINDEN, P.J., THOMAS H. NEWTON and RONALD R. HOLLIGER, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ms. Lynette Mackley DeWalt appeals from the trial court’s judgment dismissing her Motion to Modify the custodial .arrangement for her daughter. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b)
WEINBERG & COMPANY, PA
                        Town Executive Center
                     6100 Glades Road, Suite 314
                      Boca Raton, Florida 33434


          CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT


We hereby consent to the use in the Form 10-KSB of Barhill Acquisition
Corporation of our report for the period from June 2, 1998 (inception)
to December 31, 1998 dated February 16, 1999 relating to the financial
statements of Barhill Acquisition Corporation which appear in such 
Form 10-KSB.


                              WEINBERG & COMPANY PA
                              Certified Public Accountants


Boca Raton, Florida 
March 8, 1999
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

The undersigned certifypursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that:

 

(1) Theaccompanying  quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31,2010, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,  and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the accompanying report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: August 25, 2010 | /s/ Robert J. Ferguson                                     |
|----------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------|
|                       | Robert J. Ferguson,  President and Chief Executive Officer |
|                       |                                                       |
|                       |                                                       |
| Date: August 25, 2010 | /s/ Brett L. Frevert                                       |
|                       | Brett L.  Frevert, Interim Chief Financial Officer    |

 

1

----
STATE v. Tilmon Charles GOLPHIN

441A98-4

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 18, 2018

Mr. Jay H. Ferguson, Durham, Attorney at Law, for Golphin, Tilmon Charles

Mr. Kenneth J. Rose, Durham, Attorney at Law, for Golphin, Tilmon Charles

Ms. Danielle Marquis Elder, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

Mr. Jonathan P. Babb, Raleigh, Special Counsel to Attorney General, for State of N.C.

Mr. James E. Williams, Jr., Carrboro, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Advocates for Justice

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

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

Mr. Irving Joyner, Durham, Attorney at Law, for N.C. State Conference of the NAACP

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

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

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

Mr. Carlos E. Mahoney, Durham, Attorney at Law, for NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Defense Fund, Inc.

Ms. Jin Hee Lee, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, for NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Defense Fund, Inc.

Mr. W. Kerrel Murray, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, for NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Defense Fund, Inc.

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

Mr. Burton Craige, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Advocates for Justice

Mr. Jeremy M. Falcone, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for Former State and Federal Prosecutors

Mr. William R. West, District Attorney, for State

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th of July 2018 by NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.to admit Jin Hee Lee Pro Hac Vice:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of July 2018."

Beasley, J. recused