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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-4040

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ADRIAN MORRISON,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:17-cr-00204-CCE-1)

Submitted: October 15, 2019 Decided: December 10, 2019

Before RICHARDSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sophia L. Harvey, LIAO HARVEY PC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. 

Stephen Thomas Inman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Adrian Morrison pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to Hobbs Act 

robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (2012), and brandishing a firearm during and 

in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2012). The district 

court sentenced Morrison to a total of 216 months’ imprisonment, and Morrison now 

appeals. Morrison’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether 

Morrison’s § 924(c) conviction is valid. We affirm.∗

Morrison questions whether, after the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. 

Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2336 (2019) (invalidating the residual clause in § 924(c)(3)(B)), 

his § 924(c) conviction is valid. Because we have held that Hobbs Act robbery is a crime 

of violence under the force clause in § 924(c)(3)(A), Morrison’s § 924(c) conviction is 

valid. See United States v. Mathis, 932 F.3d 242, 266 (4th Cir. 2019).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have 

found no meritorious groundsfor appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 

This court requires that counsel inform Morrison, in writing, of the right to petition the 

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Morrison requests that a petition 

be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may 

 ∗ Morrison’s plea agreement contained a provision waiving his right to appeal. 

However, because the Government has not sought to enforce the waiver, our review 

pursuant to Anders is not precluded. United States v. Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263, 271 (4th 

Cir. 2007).
3

move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state 

that a copy thereof was served on Morrison. 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. 

AFFIRMED
*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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 97-31117

Summary Calendar

DANIEL H. JACKSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

SHIELD COAT, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Louisiana

(96-CV-1949-T)

May 18, 1998

Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Daniel H. Jackson ("Jackson") sued his former employer, Shield

Coat, Inc., alleging age and disability discrimination in the work

place in violation of the Age Discrimination and Employment Act of

1967 as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq. ("ADEA"), and the
2

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.

("ADA"). Jackson also claimed intentional infliction of emotional

distress. After comprehensive discovery, Shield Coat moved for

summary judgment and the district court granted that motion. 

We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the record excerpts and

relevant portions of the summary judgment record itself. For the

reasons stated by the district court in its Order and Reasons filed

under date of September 17, 1997, we are persuaded that the Final

Judgment against Jackson entered under date of September 17, 1997,

should be, and the same is hereby, AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000059591
<NAME> LINDAL CEDAR HOMES, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-29-1996
<CASH>                                           4,606
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,400
<ALLOWANCES>                                       347
<INVENTORY>                                     10,729
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,299
<PP&E>                                          20,124
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,449
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  31,381
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,599
<BONDS>                                          1,177
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            41
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,426
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    31,381
<SALES>                                         35,392
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                35,392
<CGS>                                           26,526
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,526
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   144
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  98
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,913
<INCOME-TAX>                                       688
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,225
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,225
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .30
        

</TABLE>
Motion Denied and Order filed October 22, 2020.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-20-00286-CR

____________

DANIEL GLENN OSTRANDER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 30th District Court

Wichita County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 56,171-A

ORDER

Appellant is represented by appointed counsel, Melvin K. Horany. 

Appellant’s brief was originally due May 26, 2020. We have granted more than 90 

days to file appellant’s brief -- until September 30, 2020. No brief was filed and on 

September 30, 2020, counsel filed a further motion to extend time to file 

appellant’s brief. Counsel did not allege any exceptional circumstances in the 

request. 
We deny the motion to extend time and issue the following order.

We order Melvin K. Horany to file a brief with the clerk of this court on or 

before October 30, 2020. If counsel does not timely file appellant’s brief as 

ordered, the court may issue an order abating the appeal and directing the trial 

court to conduct a hearing to determine the reason for the failure to file the brief 

and the consideration of sanctions, appointment of new counsel, or other 

appropriate relief.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Wise and Bourliot.
| 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 the results of operations of the      Company. |
|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | NORTH      AMERICAN GALVANIZING & COATINGS, INC.            (Registrant)/s/      Ronald J. Evans      President      andChief      Executive Officer(Principal      Executive Officer)/s/      Beth B. Hood      Vice      President andChief      Financial Officer(Principal      Financial Officer)  |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### HOPE v. JONES

No. 400P82.

Case below: 57 N.C. App. 600.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 25 August 1982.
##### 



EXHIBIT 13.1 COMPANYS OFFICERS CERTIFICATE GRACECHURCH CARD FUNDING (NO. 7) PLC
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE The undersigned officer of Gracechurch Card Funding (No. 7) PLC, a public limited company
incorporated in England and Wales (the Issuer), hereby certifies on behalf of the Issuer and on
his own behalf for purposes of the $675,000,000 Class A Floating Rate Asset-Backed Notes, the
$37,500,000 Class B Floating Rate Asset-Backed Notes and the $37,500,000 Class C Floating Rate
Asset-Backed Notes (together, the Notes), as follows:  1.
    
    I am a duly appointed, qualified and acting Director of the Issuer;2.
    
    I am duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officers Certificate on behalf of the Issuer; and3.
    
    To the best of my knowledge, the Issuer has complied with all conditions and covenants under the
Relevant Documents for the issue of Notes for the period between January 1, 2004 and the end of
the Issuers fiscal year on December 31, 2004. Capitalized terms used and not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the
Registration Statement related to the above-referenced issue of Notes. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed my name this 30th day of June, 2005. By:
    /s/ Paul Gerard TurnerName:
    Paul Gerard TurnerTitle:
    Director
Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 22-7      Filed 04/28/2008     Page 1 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 22-7      Filed 04/28/2008     Page 2 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 22-7      Filed 04/28/2008     Page 3 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 22-7      Filed 04/28/2008     Page 4 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-5      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 1 of 16

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-5      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 2 of 16

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-5      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 3 of 16

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-5      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 4 of 16

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-5      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 5 of 16

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-5      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 6 of 16

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-5      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 7 of 16

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-5      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 8 of 16

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-5      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 9 of 16

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-5      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 10 of 16

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-5      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 11 of 16

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-5      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 12 of 16

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-5      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 13 of 16

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-5      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 14 of 16

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-5      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 15 of 16

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-5      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 16 of 16
# C_2011274EN.01001501.xml

| 17.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 274/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 274/15

---

Corrigendum to Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 187 of 28 June 2011
  )

Official Journal of the European Union C 187 of 28 June 2011

2011/C 274/09

On page 6, second column, 10th entry of the table:

for:

‘Overall budget: EUR 10 625 700 million’,

read:

‘Overall budget: EUR 10 625 700’.

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7378
JOE PRADUBSRI, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CAPTAIN SMITH; WENDY REYNOLDS, Nurse, Manning Correctional Institute Medical Staff, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-01-4077-3-24-BC) Submitted: January 10, 2003 Decided: January 30, 2003 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joe Pradubsri, Appellant Pro Se. John Eric Fulda, Irmo, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Joe Pradubsri appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Pradubsri v. Smith , No. CA-01-4077-3- 24-BC (D.S.C. filed Aug. 20, 2002, entered Aug. 21, 2002). 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
#### STATE v. TYNDALL

No. 208 PC.

Case below: 41 N.G-. Ap'p. 406.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 12 July 1979.
Exhibit 23.2

CONSENT OF KPMG LLP

The
Board of Directors
Metron Technology N.V.

The
audits referred to in our report dated July 12, 2001, included the related financial statement schedule for the two-year period ended May 31, 2001, included
in the May 31, 2002 annual report on Form 10-K of Metron Technology N.V. This financial statement schedule is the responsibility of the Company's management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on this financial statement schedule based on our audits. In our opinion, this financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic
consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-54634 and No. 333-93627) on Form S-8 and the registration statements
(No. 333-65184 and No. 333-97205) on Form S-3 of Metron Technology N.V. of our report dated July 12, 2001, relating to the consolidated balance sheet of Metron
Technology N.V. and subsidiaries as of May 31, 2001, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the years
in the two-year period ended May 31, 2001 and the related schedule, which report appears in the May 31, 2002 annual report on Form 10-K of Metron
Technology N.V.



Mountain
View, California
August 14, 2002

---

QuickLinks
# C_2011374EN.01001701.xml

| 22.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/17

---

Corrigendum to the Report on the annual accounts of the Executive Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation for the financial year 2010, together with the Agency's replies

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 366 of 15 December 2011
  )

Official Journal of the European Union C 366 of 15 December 2011

2011/C 374/12

On page 86, paragraph 14, ‘The Agency’s Replies’:

for:

| ‘14. | The amounts carried forward are related to obligations duly contracted at the end of 2010 and invoiced in 2011. Compared to the previous years, the main increases in the appropriations carried forward are related to the move to the new premises in November 2010, the costs for the evaluation in November-December of a successful call receiving 40 % more proposals in 2010 and invoices under contracts for the new ex post audit strategy progressively implemented by the Agency as of 2010. The amounts carried forward on other budget lines have tended to decrease.’, |
| --- | --- |

‘14.

The amounts carried forward are related to obligations duly contracted at the end of 2010 and invoiced in 2011. Compared to the previous years, the main increases in the appropriations carried forward are related to the move to the new premises in November 2010, the costs for the evaluation in November-December of a successful call receiving 40 % more proposals in 2010 and invoices under contracts for the new ex post audit strategy progressively implemented by the Agency as of 2010. The amounts carried forward on other budget lines have tended to decrease.’,

read:

| ‘14. | The amounts carried forward are related to obligations duly contracted at the end of 2010 and invoiced in 2011. Compared to the previous years, the main increases in the appropriations carried forward are related to the move to the new premises in November 2010, the costs for the evaluation in November-December of a successful call receiving 40 % more proposals in 2010 than in 2009 and invoices under contracts for the new ex post audit strategy progressively implemented by the Agency as of 2010. The amounts carried forward on other budget lines have tended to decrease.’. |
| --- | --- |

‘14.

The amounts carried forward are related to obligations duly contracted at the end of 2010 and invoiced in 2011. Compared to the previous years, the main increases in the appropriations carried forward are related to the move to the new premises in November 2010, the costs for the evaluation in November-December of a successful call receiving 40 % more proposals in 2010 than in 2009 and invoices under contracts for the new ex post audit strategy progressively implemented by the Agency as of 2010. The amounts carried forward on other budget lines have tended to decrease.’.

---
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

STANLEY DELORD MARTIN,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 3:10cv28/MCR/EMT

WALTER McNEIL,

Respondent.

________________________________________/

ORDER

Petitioner, an inmate proceeding pro se, initiated this action by filing a petition for writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). Petitioner also filed a motion to proceed in

forma pauperis (Doc. 7). 

Upon review of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the court concludes that Petitioner

failed to provide the requisite supporting documentation for the motion, specifically, a financial

certificate signed by a prison official with an attached copy of his trust fund account statement

covering the six-month period preceding the filing of the petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2).

Therefore, the motion will be denied without prejudice to Petitioner’s refiling a complete motion

with the required supporting documentation. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 7) is DENIED without

prejudice.

2. The clerk shall send Petitioner a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a prisoner

consent form and financial certificate approved for use in the Northern District.

3. Within THIRTY (30) DAYS from the date of docketing of this order Petitioner shall

(1) pay the $5.00 filing fee, or (2) submit a completed motion to proceed in forma pauperis with the

requisite prisoner consent form and financial certificate signed by a prison official, including an
Page 2 of 2

attached computer printout of the transactions in his prison account during the preceding six month

period.

4. Failure to comply with this order as instructed may result in a recommendation that

this case be dismissed for failure to comply with an order of the court.

DONE AND ORDERED this 5th day of March 2010.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case No.: 3:10cv28/MCR/EMT
#### STATE ex rel. UTILITIES COMMISSION v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY

No. 216PA82.

Case below: 56 N.C. App. 448.

Petition by plaintiff for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 13 July 1982.
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 Annual Report of Asia4sale.com, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ending December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Eric Montandon, 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

|(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 the operation of the Company.
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

/s/ Eric Montandon

Eric Montandon

Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

February 24, 2006

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by Registrant for the purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of this Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

A signed original of this written statement required by §906 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 1:06-cv-14979-AKH Document 4 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1