alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **0 -**  **6 268** 

ADIB EDDIE RAMEZ MAKDESSI , a/k/a Eddie Makdessi , P etitioner

– Appell ant ,
v. BRYAN WATSON , Warden of Wallens Ridge State Prison, Respondent

– Appell ee .

Appe al from the United States District Court for the Ea stern District of Virginia , at Richmond
. Richard L. Williams , Senior District Judge. ( 3 : 0 9

- c v - 00 214

- RLW )

Submitted : January 2 8 , 2011 Decided: March 9 , 2011

Before NIEMEYER, KING , and GREGORY , Cir cuit Judges
.
Dismiss e d by un published per curiam opinion
.
Adib Eddie Ramez Makdessi , Appellant Pro Se. Leah A. Darron, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Adib Eddie Ramez Makdessi seeks to appeal the district
court ’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. S ee 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2006) . 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) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satis fies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2 003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently review ed the record and conclude that Makdessi has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Makdessi’s motions for transcript s and rec ords at G overnment expense ; t o p reserve his

c onstitutional r ight to a ppeal ; to compel the prison to grant3 access to the law library ; and for a protective order
. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presente d in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSE D
Exhibit 32.1 - SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION



EXHIBIT 32.1

Section 1350 Certifications



I am the Principal Executive Officers and Principal Financial Officer
of Monster Offers, a Nevada corporation (the “Company”). I am delivering this certificate in connection with the Form
10-Q of the Company for the quarter year ended September 30, 2012 and filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“Form
10-Q”).



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Monster Offers (the “Company”) certifies to his knowledge
that:



|                                                                |                                                                                                                                                                                                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1)                                                             | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2012 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 that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the Company.                                                    
|                                                               
|/s/ Wayne Irving II                                            
|Wayne Irving II                                                
|Principal Executive Officer
        Principal Financial Officer



Date: December 19, 2012
#### STATE v. ROYALL

No. 94 PC.

Case below: 14 N.C. App. 214.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 13 June 1972.
#### STATE v. PARKER

No. 196 PC.

Case below: 51 N.C. App. 711.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 8 July 1981. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 8 July 1981.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

LAUREL LEIGH KROTZINGER,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 4:10-cv-00214-MP-WCS

US DISTRICT COURT,

Respondent.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 10, Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge, recommending that the § 2241 petition be dismissed in this case. The plaintiff

filed objections, Doc. 11, and the Court has made a de novo determination of those portions of

the Report and Recommendation to which objection was made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The

Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the time petitioner spent in a drug treatment facility

and in a halfway house prior to her sentencing cannot be considered time in "official detention"

under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b). That section provides:

(b) Credit for Prior Custody.— A defendant shall be given credit toward the

service of a term of imprisonment for any time [s]he has spent in official

detention prior to the date the sentence commences...

The Supreme Court has expressly considered and rejected the petitioner’s argument in Reno v.

Koray, 515 U.S. 50, 115 S.Ct. 2021 (1995), holding that time spent by prisoner at community

treatment center while “released” on bail pursuant to Bail Reform Act was not “official

detention” within meaning of statute entitling defendant to “credit toward the service of a term of

imprisonment for any time he has spent in official detention prior to the date the sentence

Case 4:10-cv-00214-MP-WCS Document 12 Filed 06/22/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

commences”. Id. at 54. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is accepted and

incorporated herein. 

2. The petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is denied, and the Clerk is directed to close

the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of June, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case No: 4:10-cv-00214-MP-WCS

Case 4:10-cv-00214-MP-WCS Document 12 Filed 06/22/11 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

ROBERT PAUL KNOWLES,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 5:10cv166-RH/GRJ

BARD et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This case is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation, ECF No. 14. No objections have been filed. Upon

consideration,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED and adopted as the court’s

opinion. The clerk must enter judgment stating, “The complaint is DISMISSED

without prejudice.” The clerk must close the file.

SO ORDERED on July 18, 2011.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

United States District Judge

Case 5:10-cv-00166-RH-GRJ Document 15 Filed 07/19/11 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

DERRICK JORDAN,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 5:10cv98/RS/EMT

UNKNOWN OFFICER, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before the court upon referral from the clerk. 

Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(Doc. 1). On May 6, 2010, this court entered an order giving Plaintiff thirty (30) days in which to

pay an initial partial filing fee in the amount of $9.54 (Doc. 5). Plaintiff failed to pay the initial

partial filing fee; therefore, on June 10, 2010, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to show

cause, within twenty (20) days, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with

an order of the court (Doc. 7). Plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause advising the court

why he had been unable to pay the initial partial filing fee and stating that he would “send

something” soon if he received money in his inmate bank account (Doc. 9). Therefore, on June 29,

2019, this court entered an order giving Plaintiff an additional thirty (30) days in which to pay the

fee (Doc. 10). Plaintiff was informed that his failure to respond to the order as directed could result

in a recommendation of dismissal of this action (id.). 

The time for compliance with the June 29, 2010, order has now elapsed, and Plaintiff has

failed to pay the initial partial filing fee or otherwise respond to the court’s order.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with an
Page 2 of 2

order of the court.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 13th day of August 2010.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within

fourteen (14) days after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that may appear

on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only. A copy of objections shall be

served upon all other parties. Failure to object may limit the scope of appellate review of

factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701 (11th Cir.

1988).

Case No: 5:10cv98/RS/EMT
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

ANTHONY QUINN COLEMAN,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 5:10cv99/RH/EMT

PAIGE AUGUSTINE,

Respondent. 

_______________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the court on Petitioner’s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of his habeas

petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 7).

Rule 41(a)(1) provides that an action may be dismissed without an order of the court by

filing a notice of dismissal at any time before the adverse party serves an answer, or files a motion

for summary judgment. Because Respondent has not yet served an answer in the instant case, it is

clear that Petitioner is automatically entitled to a voluntary dismissal at this time. The dismissal

should be without prejudice to Petitioner’s presenting his claims in a subsequent habeas petition.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That Petitioner’s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal (Doc. 7) be GRANTED and this action

dismissed without prejudice.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 4th day of June 2010.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 2 of 2

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations may be filed within

fourteen (14) days after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that may appear

on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only. A copy of objections shall be

served upon the magistrate judge and all other parties. Failure to object may limit the scope

of appellate review of factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d

698, 701 (11th Cir. 1988).

Case No.: 5:10cv99/RH/EMT
---

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

I, Lee Costerd, 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Wolverine
      Exploration Inc. for the period ended February 28, 2011 (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 Wolverine Exploration Inc.                                                                    

Dated: April 12, 2011

| | /s/
      Lee Costerd                                               
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Lee Costerd                                                         
| | Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial
      Officer and Director 
| | (Principal Financial Officer and Principal
      Accounting Officer)
| | Wolverine Exploration Inc.                                          

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 required by Section 906, has been provided to Wolverine
Exploration Inc. and will be retained by Wolverine Exploration Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

---
Exhibit
99.2
 
 
 CERTIFICATE
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 (the “Report”) on the Form 10-Q of Plata
Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) for the three months ended March 31, 2010, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Dexter
R. Caliso, Chief Executive Officer, President and Director, 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
Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15
(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 2. The
information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.
 
 Dated:
April 27, 2010
 
 
 DEXTER R.
CALISO
 Dexter R.
Caliso
 Chief
Executive Officer,
 President
and Director
 
 -1-
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ETHAN R. GORDON,

Plaintiff,

v. 4:10cv111-WS

P. LEMON, et al.,

Defendants.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 91)

docketed August 21, 2012. The magistrate judge recommends that the defendants'

motion for summary judgment be granted. The plaintiff has filed no objections to the

report and recommendation.

Having reviewed the record, the court finds that the magistrate judge's report and

recommendation should be adopted. Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (doc. 91) is ADOPTED

and incorporated by reference into this order.

2. The defendants' motion for summary judgment (doc. 77) is GRANTED.

3. The clerk shall enter judgment stating: "This action is dismissed with

prejudice."

Case 4:10-cv-00111-WS-GRJ Document 92 Filed 09/24/12 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

DONE AND ORDERED this 24th day of September , 2012.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No. 4:10cv111-WS

Case 4:10-cv-00111-WS-GRJ Document 92 Filed 09/24/12 Page 2 of 2
# C_2015419EN.01020602.xml

| 16.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 419/206 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 419/206

---

P7_TA(2012)0415

EU accession to the Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution resulting from exploration and exploitation of the continental shelf and the seabed and its subsoil ***

European Parliament legislative resolution of 20 November 2012 on the draft Council decision on the accession of the European Union to the Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution resulting from exploration and exploitation of the continental shelf and the seabed and its subsoil (09671/2012 — C7-0144/2012 — 2011/0304(NLE))

(Consent)

(2015/C 419/36)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (09671/2012), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (09671/2012),

| — | having regard to the Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution resulting from exploration and exploitation of the continental shelf and the seabed and its subsoil, attached to the above-mentioned draft Council decision, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution resulting from exploration and exploitation of the continental shelf and the seabed and its subsoil, attached to the above-mentioned draft Council decision,

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 192(1) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0144/2012), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 192(1) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0144/2012),

| — | having regard to Rules 81 and 90(7) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rules 81 and 90(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A7-0319/2012), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A7-0319/2012),

| 1. | Consents to accession to the Protocol; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Consents to accession to the Protocol;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

---
#### STATE v. SEAY

No. 185 PC.

Case below: 44 N.C. App. 301.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 February 1980. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 6 February 1980.
# C_2011135EN.01001601.xml

| 5.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/16

---

NOTIFICATION BY THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND TO THE COUNCIL

of 28 May 2010

of a declaration pursuant to point (l) of Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the coordination of social security systems

2011/C 135/10

With reference to the provisions of point (l) of Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (1), the French Government declares that that Regulation applies to:

1

| — | the unemployment insurance scheme of the Union Nationale pour l'emploi dans l'industrie et le commerce (UNEDIC), as established in the convention signed by the national organisations representing employers and employees on 19 February 2009 and all the associated texts (rules, annexes and implementing agreements), which were approved by Ministerial Decree of 30 March 2009, entered into force on 1 April 2009 and expire on 31 March 2011 (hereinafter ‘the unemployment insurance scheme’). |
| --- | --- |

—

the unemployment insurance scheme of the Union Nationale pour l'emploi dans l'industrie et le commerce (UNEDIC), as established in the convention signed by the national organisations representing employers and employees on 19 February 2009 and all the associated texts (rules, annexes and implementing agreements), which were approved by Ministerial Decree of 30 March 2009, entered into force on 1 April 2009 and expire on 31 March 2011 (hereinafter ‘the unemployment insurance scheme’).

The date of effective application of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 to the unemployment insurance scheme has been set as 1 May 2010, the date of application of that Regulation and the date of the repeal of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, and consequently the date on which the previous declaration concerning the unemployment insurance scheme, made pursuant to point (j) of Article 1 and Article 97 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, ceased to apply.

This Declaration does not constitute a one-off declaration concerning the aforementioned agreement, but rather relates to the application of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 to the whole of the French unemployment insurance scheme, including the subsequent amendments thereto and the new agreements which will replace that of 19 February 2009.

---

(1)  OJ L 166, 30.4.2004, p. 1.

1

---
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 6 , 202 4

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 2 3

- 00 755

- CV

LAUREN L. ROTTET , Appellant

V.
MATTHEW ARNOLD , Appelle e

On Appeal from the 80 th District Court Harris County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2018

- 12932

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is from a judgment signed September 18 , 202 3

. The clerk’s
record was file d November 14 , 202 3

. The reporter’s record was filed January 2,
2024. No brief was filed.

On June 20 , 20 24 , we issued a n order stating that unless appellant filed a brief
on or before July 22 , 20 24 , the appeal was subject to dismissal without further notice for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). Appellant filed no brief or other response. We dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Zimmerer, and Hassan.