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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7383

ROGER PAUL PARSONS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM S. HAINES, Warden, Huttonsville

Correctional Center,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior

District Judge. (CA-04-24-2-REM)

Submitted: January 27, 2006 Decided: February 17, 2006

 

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James McCall Cagle, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant.

Colleen Anne Ford, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA,

Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Roger Paul Parsons, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order adopting the report and recommendation of

the magistrate judge to deny relief on his petition filed under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless this

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

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Parsons has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

 DISMISSED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

VISION BANK,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10cv45/RS-MD 

JOHN K. LUKE and GENE

VENESKY,

Defendants.

__________________________________/

ORDER

The Amended Second Motion To Compel Mediation (Doc. 56) is denied. See

Scheduling and Mediation Order (Doc. 50).

ORDERED on July 2, 2010.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Exhibit 32.02
 
 
 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 MineralRite Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Guy Peckham, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.






/s/ Guy Peckham


By: Guy Peckham


Its: Chief Financial Officer





Dated: May 15, 2014





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement 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.
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 27-8 Filed 07/31/2008 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 27-8 Filed 07/31/2008 Page 2 of 2
#### GAMBILL v. BARE

No. 89 PC.

Case below: 32 N.C. App. 597.

Petition by defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 3 May 1977.
#### STATE v. McGHEE

No. 140 PC.

Case below: 16 N.C. App. 702.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 6 February 1973.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-23-00024-CR

IN RE Steven ROBLES

Original Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 1, 2023

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On January 12, 2023, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus.

2 After considering the 

petition and this record, this court concludes relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, 

the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). Relator’s motion for 

injunctive relief is denied as moot.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 304370, styled State of Texas v. Steven Robles, pending in the County Court 

at Law No. 7, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Eugenia “Genie” Wright presiding. 2 Relator’s filing is titled “Interlocutory Injunction for Abuse of Discretion” which we construe as a petition for writ 

of mandamus.
Case 1:07-cv-03525-PKL Document 1 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 1 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-03525-PKL Document 1 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 2 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-03525-PKL Document 1 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 3 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-03525-PKL Document 1 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 4 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-03525-PKL Document 1 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 5 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-03525-PKL Document 1 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 6 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-03525-PKL Document 1 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 7 of 7
#### PETE MAHARIAS, t/a QUONSET HUT RESTAURANT v. WEATHERS BROTHERS MOVING and STORAGE.

(Filed 10 October 1962.)

Negligence § S3—

Evidence tending to show that fire originated on defendant’s premises, which spread and caused damage to plaintiff’s building, that after the fire, rags with furniture polish on them were found in the room in which the fire originated, together with evidence that the fire could have been caused by spontaneous combustion, but also that it was possible that it resulted from any one of a number of causes, *held*insufficient to be submitted to the jury, since the evidence raises a mere conjecture or speculation as to the cause of the fire.

Appeal by plaintiff from *McLean, J.,*June 18, 1962 Special “A” Term of MeCKLENbueg.

Action to recover damages for destruction of and injury to plaintiff's property by fire which originated by reason of the alleged actionable negligence of defendant.

From judgment of involuntary nonsuit, plaintiff appeals.

*Plumides & Plumides and Warren D. Blair for appellant.*

*McDougle, Ervin, Horack & Snepp for appellee.*

Per Curiam.

The nonsuit was entered at the close of plaintiff's evidence, which tends to show the following particulars:

Plaintiff is the owner of the Quonset Hut Restaurant located in Charlotte. Defendant owns a warehouse in which it stores and refinishes used furniture. The warehouse is about 4 feet south and to the rear of the restaurant. About 10:00 P.M. on 9 June 1961 a fire started in a room in the northwest corner of the warehouse and spread to other parts of the warehouse and to plaintiff’s establishment, causing fire, water and smoke damage to plaintiff’s place of business and its contents. The room in which the fire originated had been used by defendant as a location for polishing furniture. Most of the merchandise in this room was destroyed by the fire. After the fire had been extinguished, Mr. Black, the Assistant Fire Chief, inspected the room and found an overturned metal cabinet, evidence of burned rags, and about a half-bushel of charred rags piled in a corner. There was some type of furniture polish on the rags. Mr. Black stated that, in his opinion, the pile of rags “could have caused spontaneous combustion.” On cross-examination he stated that he didn’t know where the rags were before the fire and that it was “possible that this fire could have happened from any one of a number of causes.”

*768Plaintiff alleges that his loss was proximately caused by the negligence of defendant in permitting a pile of rags covered by highly inflammable fluid to accumulate, and that the fire resulted from spontaneous combustion of the pile of rags.

Nonsuit was proper. The evidence raised a mere conjecture, surmise and speculation as to the cause of the fire. A cause of action must be based on something more than a guess.

The judgment below is

Affirmed.
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 William Lyon Homes (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William Lyon, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 result of operations of the Company.



/s/    WILLIAM LYON

---

William Lyon

Chief Executive Officer

March 7, 2008



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to William Lyon Homes and will be retained by William Lyon Homes and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
#### STATE v. GARDNER

No. 71 PC.

Case below: 28 N.C. App. 484.

Petition for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 April 1976.
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 17-4 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 1 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 17-4 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 2 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 17-4 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 3 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 17-4 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 4 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 17-4 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 5 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 17-4 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 6 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 17-4 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 7 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 17-4 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 8 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 17-4 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 9 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 17-4 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 10 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 17-4 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 11 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 17-4 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 12 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 17-4 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 13 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 17-4 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 14 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 17-4 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 15 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 17-4 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 16 of 16
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          16,893
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   69,588
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                86,481
<PP&E>                                           5,486
<DEPRECIATION>                                     115
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 191,852
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          198,838
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,000
<OTHER-SE>                                    (16,986)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   191,852
<SALES>                                         70,024
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                70,024
<CGS>                                            1,212
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,078,025
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (2,227)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,006,986)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,006,986)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,006,986)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.50)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.50)


</TABLE>
---

EXHIBIT 12.2

SARBANES-OXLEY CFO CERTIFICATION

I, Jeffrey R. Mason, Chief Financial Officer of Rockwell
Diamonds Inc. (formerly, "Rockwell Ventures Inc."), certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 20-F (Amendment
#2) of Rockwell Ventures 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
Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The Companys other certifying officers 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 Company 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
Company, 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
Company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 Company's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during
the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company's internal control over
financial reporting; and

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

|Date:  | May 12, 2007           
|------ | -----------------------
|       |                        
|       | /s/ Jeffrey R. Mason   
|By:    | Jeffrey R. Mason       
|Title: | Chief Financial Officer

---
Case 1:07-cv-03493-CM Document 2 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

HARRY MICHAEL WRIGHT,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 4:10cv85-MP/WCS

MAYOR JOHN MARKS,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

After issuance of the first report and recommendation to dismiss this case, doc.

19, Plaintiff, a pro se inmate, filed a motion to amend, doc. 21, and motion for

reconsideration, doc. 22. I then entered a supplemental report and recommendation,

doc. 23, finding the report and recommendation was correct as entered, this case

should be dismissed, and recommended denial of the motion to amend. 

Plaintiff has again filed another motion to amend, doc. 24, a proposed fourth

amended complaint, doc. 25, and another motion for reconsideration, doc. 26. Plaintiff

contends that he has now shown that Defendant Moody did not report that the alleged

victim did not give a physical description of the alleged perpetrator and did not initial and

date the photograph of Plaintiff that was shown to the victim in the photographic line-up. 
Page 2 of 2

There was still probable cause to arrest Plaintiff based upon the other information the

victim gave to Defendant Moody and his investigation. Since amendment is futile, it

should again be denied.

Plaintiff should not file another motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff's recourse is

to file objections to the assigned District Judge. 

In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's

successive motion to amend, doc. 24, be DENIED, that Plaintiff's motion for

reconsideration, doc. 26, be DENIED, and this case be DISMISSED for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and that all

pending motions be denied.

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on November 22, 2010.

 s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 14 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 14 days

after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the

scope of review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case No. 4:10cv85-MP/WCS
# C_2011245EN.01000701.xml

| 24.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/7

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

2011/C 245/07

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

1

| Date and time of closure | 2.8.2011 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 2.8.2011-31.12.2011 |
| Member State | Portugal |
| Stock or Group of stocks | WHB/8C3411 |
| Species | Blue whiting (Micromesistius poutassou) |
| Zone | VIIIc, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1 |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | — |

Date and time of closure

2.8.2011

Duration

2.8.2011-31.12.2011

Member State

Portugal

Stock or Group of stocks

WHB/8C3411

Species

Blue whiting (Micromesistius poutassou)

Micromesistius poutassou

Zone

VIIIc, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

—

Web link to the decision of the Member State:

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/tacs/index_en.htm

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR
THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           3,944
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  133,484
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,644
<INVENTORY>                                    190,954
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               338,782
<PP&E>                                         382,587
<DEPRECIATION>                                 209,328
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 559,509
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          108,528
<BONDS>                                         28,795
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        50,408
<OTHER-SE>                                     360,642
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   559,509
<SALES>                                        244,080
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               244,080
<CGS>                                          170,813
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  170,813
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 649
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 33,273
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,935
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             20,338
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    20,338
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .48
        

</TABLE>
_J ORIGINAL

yc #

“HC SDNY
4 UCUMENT
: ELEC PRONICALLY FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

THE FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION PREMIER
LEAGUE LIMITED, BOURNE CO. (together
with its affiliate MURBO MUSIC
PUBLISHING, INC.), CHERRY LANE MUSIC
PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC., CAL IV
ENTERTAINMENT LLC, ROBERT TUR d/b/a
LOS ANGELES NEWS SERVICE, NATIONAL
MUSIC PUBLISHERS’ ASSOCIATION, THE
RODGERS & HAMMERSTEIN
ORGANIZATION, STAGE THREE
MUSIC(US), INC., EDWARD B. MARKS
MUSIC COMPANY, FREDDY BIENSTOCK
MUSIC COMPANY d/b/a BIENSTOCK
PUBLISHING COMPANY, ALLEY MUSIC
CORPORATION, X-RAY DOG MUSIC, INC.,
FEDERATION FRANCAISE DE TENNIS,
THE MUSIC FORCE MEDIA GROUP LLC,
THE MUSIC FORCE LLC, and SIN-DROME
RECORDS, LTD. on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,
v.

YOUTUBE, INC., YOUTUBE, LLC and
GOOGLE, INC,

Defendants.

TO: The Clerk of Court and All Parties of Record:

ECF Case

07 Civ. 3582 (LLS)

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL
OF COUNSEL AND

PROPOSED] ORDER

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Local Civil Rule 1.4, court-appointed Co-Lead

Counsel Bermstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP hereby moves this Court for an Order

granting permission for John P. Coffey, Esq. to withdraw his appearance as Co-Lead Counsel for

Lead Plaintiffs, Named Plaintiffs and the Prospective Class in the above-captioned action.


Mr. Coffey has retired from the law firm effective October 16, 2009 and filed a Notice of

Withdrawal of Appearance electronically with the Court on October 21, 2009

Bemstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP continues to serve as Co-Lead Counsel
through its attorneys listed below, who request that all future correspondence and papers in this

action continue to be directed to them.
DATED: March 5, 2010
Respectfully submitted,

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ

. Berger
John C, Browne

Lauren A. McMillen

1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019

T: (212) 554-1400

F: (212) 554-1444

Co- Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs,
Named Plaintiffs Murbo Music Publishing,
Inc., Cherry Lane Music Publishing
Company, Inc., Robert Tur d/b/a Los
Angeles News Service, X-Ray Dog Music,
Inc., Fédération Francaise de Tennis,
Premier League Limited, and for the
Prospective Class

SO ORDERED:

Loves L: Stent uy
Honorable Louis L. Stanton

United States District Judg { |
3 s/ do '