alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6773
RESTONEY ROBINSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusDEAN ATKINS; DENNIS A. WICKER, Lieutenant Governor; JAMES J. COMAN, Director; CHRISTOPHER BREWER; GAYL MANTHEI, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-1017-6) Submitted: August 28, 1997 Decided: September 17, 1997 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Restoney Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. John Hamilton Watters, Special Deputy Attorney General, Joan Herre Erwin, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Robinson v. Atkins , No. CA96-1017-6 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 14, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Case 3:10-cv-00355-MCR -EMT Document 9 Filed 10/12/10 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:10-cv-00355-MCR -EMT Document 9 Filed 10/12/10 Page 2 of 3
Case 3:10-cv-00355-MCR -EMT Document 9 Filed 10/12/10 Page 3 of 3
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

CARL MORGAN,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:10cv247/MCR/EMT

W. HICKS, 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). Plaintiff subsequently filed a third

amended complaint (doc. 44). By order of this court dated May 16, 2011, Plaintiff was given thirty

(30) days in which to file a fourth amended complaint (see doc. 46). Plaintiff failed to file a fourth

amended complaint; therefore, on June 28, 2011, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to

show cause, within twenty-one (21) days, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to

comply with an order of the court (doc. 48). The time for compliance with the show cause order has

now elapsed, with no response from Plaintiff.

 Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

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

order of the court.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 26th day of July 2011.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-00247-MCR-EMT Document 49 Filed 07/26/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

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: 3:10cv247/MCR/EMT

Case 3:10-cv-00247-MCR-EMT Document 49 Filed 07/26/11 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 2

 IN T H E U N IT E D STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

DOUGLAS LOWERY,1

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:10cv308/WS/CJK

SANTA ROSA COUNTY JAIL, et al.,

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff commenced this action on August 20, 2010, by filing a civil rights

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docs.

1, 2). Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on June 15, 2011. (Doc. 11). On

February 21, 2012, the Court issued an order directing plaintiff to show cause why

this case should not be dismissed as moot, and to include with his response a

statement of his current address. (Doc. 12). Plaintiff was provided fourteen days in

which to comply with the order and warned that failure to do so would result in a

recommendation that this case be dismissed. (Id.).

A copy of the February 21, 2012 order was mailed to plaintiff at three different

addresses: 1) the Santa Rosa County Jail (plaintiff’s address of record and the

address indicated on plaintiff’s second amended complaint); (2) Lakeview Center,

Plaintiff also identifies himself as “Douglas Harold Lowery, II.” (Doc. 11, p. 1). 1

Case 3:10-cv-00308-WS-CJK Document 16 Filed 03/21/12 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Attn: Douglas Lowery, 1221 West Lakeview Ave., Pensacola, FL 32505-1836 (the

address indicated in plaintiff’s last notice of change of address, doc. 5); and (3) 4367

Woodville Rd., Milton, FL 32583 (the release address indicated on the Santa Rosa

County Jail’s website). All copies of the orders have been returned as undeliverable. 

(Docs. 13-15). To date, plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s February 21, 2012

order, or notified the Court of his current address. 

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

1. That this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for plaintiff's

failure to comply with an order of the Court and failure to keep the Court informed

of his current address.

2. That the Clerk be directed to close the file. 

At Pensacola, Florida, this 21st day of March, 2012.

/s/Charles J. Kahn, Jr.

CHARLES J. KAHN, JR.

UNITEDSTATESMAGISTRATEJUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

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

fourteen 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, and does not

control. 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 (11 Cir. 1988). th

Case No: 3:10cv308/WS/CJK

Case 3:10-cv-00308-WS-CJK Document 16 Filed 03/21/12 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:06-cr-00518-SHS Document 60 Filed 04/18/2007 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:06-cr-00518-SHS Document 60 Filed 04/18/2007 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:06-cr-00518-SHS Document 60 Filed 04/18/2007 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:06-cr-00518-SHS Document 60 Filed 04/18/2007 Page 4 of 4
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

SAMUEL BOOTH, 

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 4:10cv314-MP-WCS

KENNETH S. TUCKER, 

Respondent.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge's Report and

Recommendation dated December 7, 2011. (Doc. 14). The parties have been furnished

a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file

objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de

novo determination of any timely filed objections. 

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections thereto

timely filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted. 

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows: 

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order. 

2. The motion to dismiss the habeas petition as untimely (doc. 12) is granted,

this case is dismissed, and the Clerk is directed to close the file.

3. A certificate of appealability is denied pursuant to § 2254 Rule 11(a).

DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of January, 2012.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:10-cv-00314-MP-WCS Document 15 Filed 01/19/12 Page 1 of 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

TYRELL JAMAR JONES, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 422 MAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 27th day of September, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED. 

Justice Mundy did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas August 26, 2022 No. 04-22-00053-CR Santiago RODRIGUEZ Jr., Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 18-0863-CR-C Honorable Daniel H. Mills, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed an Anders brief and notified Appellant of his right to a free copy of the record and to file a pro se brief. Appellant requested a copy of the record, and we set Appellant’s brief due on September 9, 2022. On August 17, 2022, Appellant, who is incarcerated, noted that his unit will be on annual lockdown for at least thirty days, he will not have access to the unit law library during that time, and he requested an extension of time to file his brief until November 7, 2022. Appellant’s motion is granted. Appellant must file his pro se brief with this court by November 7, 2022.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 26th day of August, 2022.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
#### STATE v. PRINCE

No. 29 PC.

Case below: 39 N.C. App. 685.

Petition by Attorney General for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 March 1979.
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed November 09, 2016.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D16-617

Lower Tribunal Nos. 11-32285

, 05-6744

________________



### Pamela Z. White, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Willie

D. Williams

, Appellant,

vs.



### Greymar Associates, LLC,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Monica Gordo

, Judge.

Carlos A. Ziegenhirt

, for appellant.

Mark Evans Kass

, for appellee.

Before SALTER, EMAS and FERNANDEZ, JJ.

EMAS, J.We affirm the trial court’s entry of partial summary judgment, as well as the

subsequent final judgment of foreclosure, each entered in favor of appellee, upon

its determination that appellee was a bona fide purchaser for value, and because

there was no evidence establishing that, at the time appellee acquired its mortgage

interest, it had constructive or actual notice of the existence of an unrecorded

agreement, upon which appellant relies for the contention that appellant had a

previously-acquired and outstanding interest in the property. See § 695.01(1), Fla.

Stat. (2008); Gabel v. Drewrys Ltd., U.S.A., Inc.

, 68 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 1953);

Warner v. Watson

, 17 So. 654 (Fla. 1895). We also find no error in the trial court’s

denial of appellant’s motion to stay execution of the final judgment. 1

1 We note that, at the time the notice of appeal was filed, there remained

unadjudicated counterclaims below in lower case number 05-6744. However,

appellee is not a party to those counterclaims and neither the trial court

proceedings which form the basis for this appeal, nor our disposition of this appeal,

affects appellant’s right to proceed on those counterclaims.

2
Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 254 Filed 09/16/10 Page 1 of 13

Sep 16 2010
Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 254 Filed 09/16/10 Page 2 of 13
Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 254 Filed 09/16/10 Page 3 of 13
Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 254 Filed 09/16/10 Page 4 of 13
Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 254 Filed 09/16/10 Page 5 of 13
Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 254 Filed 09/16/10 Page 6 of 13
Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 254 Filed 09/16/10 Page 7 of 13
Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 254 Filed 09/16/10 Page 8 of 13
Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 254 Filed 09/16/10 Page 9 of 13
Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 254 Filed 09/16/10 Page 10 of 13
Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 254 Filed 09/16/10 Page 11 of 13
Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 254 Filed 09/16/10 Page 12 of 13
Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 254 Filed 09/16/10 Page 13 of 13
|   | (1) | The Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: August 12, 2011 | By:                                                    | /s/ Christopher Lombardi |
|-----------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|
|                  | Christopher Lombardi                                             |
|                  | Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer Director |

----
# C_2009233EN.01000101.xml

| 26.9.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 233/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 233/1

---

2009/C 233/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 220, 12.9.2009

OJ C 220, 12.9.2009

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 205, 29.8.2009

OJ C 193, 15.8.2009

OJ C 180, 1.8.2009

OJ C 167, 18.7.2009

OJ C 153, 4.7.2009

OJ C 141, 20.6.2009

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report
of Mill City Ventures III, Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2020, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Douglas M. Polinsky, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, and I, Joseph A. Geraci, II, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1.       The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934; and



2.       The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.



| | /s/ Douglas M. Polinsky
| | -----------------------
| | Douglas M. Polinsky    
| | Chief Executive Officer
| |                        
| | May 15, 2020           



| | /s/ Joseph A. Geraci, II
| | ------------------------
| | Joseph A. Geraci, II    
| | Chief Financial Officer 
| |                         
| | May 15, 2020
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-7222

BRYAN CHAPPELL, 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendant - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, 

at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-00206-IMK) 

Submitted: February 27, 2019 Decided: March 12, 2019

Before WILKINSON and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit 

Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Bryan Chappell, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM:

Bryan Chappell, a federal inmate, appeals the district court’s order adopting the 

magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing Chappell’s complaint filed pursuant 

to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b)(1), 2671-80 (2012). We have 

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

stated by the district court. Chappell v. United States, No. 1:16-cv-00206-IMK (N.D.W. 

Va. Aug. 22, 2018). 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
EXHIBIT 32.2

CFO CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Kevin T. Michaels, Chief Financial Officer of Powerwave
Technologies, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | 1. | the Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended December 31, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|      |  |                |  |     |  |                             
|----- |  | -------------- |  | --- |  | ----------------------------
|Date: |  | April 30, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ KEVIN T. MICHAELS       
|      |  |                |  |     |  | Kevin T. Michaels           
|      |  |                |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer     
|      |  |                |  |     |  | Powerwave Technologies, Inc.
# C_2010101EN.01001102.xml

| 20.4.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 101/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 101/11

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5824 — BC Partners/Spotless)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 101/05

On 14 April 2010, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5824. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5824. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Goldrich Mining Company, (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ted R. Sharp, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 81 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1.

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2.

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Goldrich Mining Company.







/s/ Ted R. Sharp

DATE:  May 15, 2009

Ted R. Sharp, Chief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Goldrich Mining Company and will be retained by Goldrich Mining Company to be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.







---
**EXHIBIT
23(a)**
 
 
 **CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
 
 We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-37652, 333-64504, 333-64504-01, 333-64504-02, 333-71004, 333-71004-01,
333-71004-02, 333-84418, 333-84418-01, 333-84418-02, 333-110125 and Amendment
No. 1 thereto, 333-103922, and 333-115159 on Form S-3 and Registration Statement
Nos. 333-32833, 333-32837, 333-45657, 333-46671, 333-62014, 333-92260 and
333-105133 on Form S-8 of TXU Corp. of our reports on the financial statements
dated March 14, 2005 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and contains
explanatory paragraphs relating to the adoption of Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards No. 123 (revised 2004) and the rescission of Emerging
Issues Task Force Issue No. 98-10 as described in Note 3 of the Notes to the
Financial Statements) and management’s report on the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting also dated March 16, 2005 appearing in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K of TXU Corp. for the year ended December 31, 2004.
 
 
 
 
 Dallas,
Texas
 March 16,
2005
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Reclamation

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting cancellation. 

# SUMMARY:

                        The Joint meeting of the California Bay-Delta Public Advisory Committee and the California Bay-Delta Authority meeting noticed in the                         **Federal Register**                         on November 8, 2007, Volume 72, Number 217, Page 63628-63629, has been cancelled. The subject meeting will be rescheduled at a later date which is yet to be determined.                     

# DATES:

The meeting was scheduled for Thursday, December 13, 2007, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Diane Buzzard, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, at 916-978-5022 or Julie Alvis, California Bay-Delta Program, at 916-445-5551.

Dated: November 26, 2007.

Diane A. Buzzard, 

Acting Special Projects Officer, Mid-Pacific Region, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

[FR Doc. 07-5948 Filed 12-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-MN-M