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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6935

JAMES ANDERSON-EL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CHIEF OF AUXILIARY SERVICES,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,

Chief District Judge. (5:11-ct-03170-D)

Submitted: September 26, 2012 Decided: September 28, 2012

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Anderson-El, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

James Anderson-El appeals the district court’s orders

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(b) (2006), and denying his motion for reconsideration. 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Although the district court characterized Anderson’s postjudgment motion as one pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b),* it did 

not abuse its discretion in denying the motion where an 

amendment would be futile. See Mayfield v. Nat’l Ass’n for 

Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc., 674 F.3d 369, 378-79 (4th Cir. 

2012). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. Anderson-El v. Chief of Auxiliary Servs., No. 

5:11-ct-03170-D (E.D.N.C. Mar. 12, 2012 & May 22, 2012). 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

 * Because Anderson’s post-judgment motion was filed on the 

twenty-eighth day after entry of the order of dismissal, it 

should have been treated as a motion to alter or amend a 

judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). So construed, 

however, the outcome does not change.
Exhibit 14.1 Consent
of Independent Auditors We consent to the incorporation by reference in
Amendment No. 4 to the Registration Statement, No. 333-102800, of Durban
Roodepoort Deep, Limited on Form F-3 of our report dated December 29, 2003 with
respect to the consolidated balance sheet of Durban Roodepoort Deep, Limited
and its subsidiaries as of June 30, 2003 and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders's equity, cash flows and notes thereto
for the year then ended, which report appears in the Annual Report on Form 20-F
of Durban Roodepoort Deep, Limited for the year ended June 30, 2003. Our report
refers to Durban Roodepoort Deep, Limited's adoption of SFAS 143
"Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations" with effect from July
1, 2002.  /s/ KPMG Inc.  /s/ I. Kramer
  /s/ C.A.T. SmitI. Kramer
  C.A.T. SmitDirector
  Director   KPMG, Inc. Registered Accountants and Auditors Chartered Accountants (5A) Johannesburg, South Africa
December 29, 2003
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

NO. DA 21-0564

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

KASEY N HUGS,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good 

cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to 

and including June 30, 2023, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s 

opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 9 2023

06/09/2023

Case Number: DA 21-0564
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

v. Case No. 3:10cr101-MCR

DENNIS M. CARONI

GERARD M. DILEO,

and

JOSEPH GEORGE PASTOREK, II,

Defendants.

 /

FINAL ORDER OF FORFEITURE

This cause is before the court on the motion of the United States of America for a

Final Order of Forfeiture. (Doc. 552). Being fully advised in the premises, the court finds

as follows:

WHEREAS, on December 20, 2011, this court entered a Preliminary Order of

Forfeiture (doc. 463) against the following:

A. Proceeds from Capital One Bank Account # 204438XXXX (Check #

CC00015639) in the amount of $101,800.05 against Dennis M. Caroni;

B. Proceeds from Capital One Bank Account # 208142XXXX (Check #

CC00015640 051) in the amount of $55,312.88 against Dennis M. Caroni;

C. Proceeds from First NBC Bank Account # 30000XXXX (Check # 1051)

in the amount of $40,024.76 against Dennis M. Caroni;

D. Proceeds from Fidelity Investments Brokerage Account #636-09XXXX

(Check #’s 909024026, 201530073, and 914645390) totaling $40,005.33

against Dennis M. Caroni;

E. Proceeds from Comerica Bank Account # 189400XXXX (Check #

74914950) in the amount of $20,160.32 against Dennis M. Caroni;
Page 2 of 2

F. Proceeds from Comerica Bank Account # 189400XXXX (Check #

74914949) in the amount of $27,456.73 against Dennis M. Caroni;

G. Proceeds from First NBC Bank Account # 11000XXXX (Check # 1052)

in the amount of $2,366.97 against Dennis M. Caroni (inadvertently

referenced as Account # 189400XXXX in the Motion for Entry of a

Preliminary Order of Forfeiture (Doc. 459) and the Preliminary Order of

Forfeiture (Doc. 463));

H. Proceeds from Comerica Bank Account # 189400XXXX (Check #

74914948) in the amount of $2,599.38 against Dennis M. Caroni;

I. Money Judgment against Gerard M. Dileo in the amount of $150,000.00

USD;

J. Money Judgment against Joseph George Pastorek, II, in the amount of

$50,000.00 USD; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Rule G (4)(a) of the Supplemental Rules for Certain

Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions, notice of this forfeiture action

and of the intent of the United States of America to dispose of the property was published

on an official Internet government forfeiture site, www.forfeiture.gov, for at least 30

consecutive days, beginning on January 7, 2012. Such notice informs all third parties of

their right to file a petition within sixty (60) days of the first date of publication setting forth

their interest in said property; and

WHEREAS, no persons or entities having an interest in the above-referenced

property have filed petitions, it is hereby

ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the right, title and interest to the

above-referenced property is hereby condemned, forfeited and vested in the United States

of America and shall be disposed of in accordance with the law.

DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of January, 2013.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No.: 3:10cr101/MCR
# C_2009232EN.01003101.xml

| 26.9.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/31

---

Corrigendum to Commission communication pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community — Public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 217 of 11 September 2009
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 217 of 11 September 2009

2009/C 232/14

On page 10, under ‘Address where the text and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the public service obligation can be obtained’:

for:

‘Arrêté 14.8.2009: modification of PSO on the route Strasbourg–Rome (NOR: DEVA0918070A).’,

read:

‘Arrêté 14.8.2009: imposition of PSO on the route Strasbourg–Rome (NOR: DEVA0918070A).’;

for:

‘osp-compagnies@dta.aviation-civile.gouv.fr’,

read:

‘compagnies.dta@aviation-civile.gouv.fr’.

---
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

JOSEPH FRANK LEE,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00027-MP-GRJ

ALACHUA COUNTY, ALACHUA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, SADIE DARNELL,

PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, ROBERT WOODY,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 14, Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge, which recommends that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff

timely objected to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Doc. 19. This Court

reviews objected-to material de novo.

Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that

Defendants violated his substantive due process rights. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that, by

repeatedly disregarding his requests for trips to the medical department, Defendants

demonstrated a deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. However, upon Plaintiff’s

request for medical treatment, corrections officers working for the Alachua County Jail

contacted the medical department concerning his symptoms and administered treatment as

instructed. Generally, an inmate who receives a medical diagnosis and care, but desires a

different diagnosis or treatment, cannot show deliberate indifference. See Hamm v. DeKalb

Cnty., 774 F.2d 1567, 1575 (11th Cir. 1985). The Magistrate Judge was correct to construe

Case 1:11-cv-00027-MP-GRJ Document 20 Filed 06/22/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Plaintiff’s Complaint as a disagreement over the adequacy of the medical treatment provided,

rather than as a claim of deliberate indifference. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, Doc. 14, is

ACCEPTED and incorporated herein.

2. Plaintiff’s Complaint, Doc. 1, is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of June, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case No: 1:11-cv-00027-MP-GRJ

Case 1:11-cv-00027-MP-GRJ Document 20 Filed 06/22/11 Page 2 of 2
# C_2011222EN.01000101.xml

| 28.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6291 — CD&R Fund VIII/SPIE)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 222/01

On 20 July 2011, 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 32011M6291. 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 32011M6291. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 15, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-10363 Summary Calendar

CHRIS JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus ROBERT SORRELS, Burleson Police Department; ROBERT HERNANDEZ, Tarrant County Police Department; UNKNOWN, Female Officer, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:05-CV-29

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Chris Jackson, pro se federal prisoner # 06914-089, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim and the district court’s denial of his motion to recuse. Finding no error, we affirm. We review dismissal of an in forma pauperis (IFP) complaint pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) under the same de novo standard of review applicable to dismissals made pursuant to F ED .No. 05-10363 -2-
R. C IV . P. 12(b)(6). Harris v. Hegmann , 198 F.3d 153, 156 (5th Cir. 1999). The sole argument that Jackson raises on appeal with respect to the dismissal of his complaint is that the district court failed to give him an opportunity to amend his complaint. We reject this argument, as the record clearly reflects that the district court afforded Jackson such an opportunity and Jackson failed to provide sufficient additional facts in support of his claim. The district court was not required to give Jackson repeated opportunities to amend once it was evident that Jackson had pleaded his best case, particularly as Jackson has failed to identify what facts he could have pleaded that would have supported his contentions. See Jacquez v. Procunier , 801 F.2d 789, 793 (5th Cir. 1986). As Jackson’s brief fails to address the merits of dismissal for failure to state a claim, that issue is deemed abandoned.
See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Jackson’s additional contention that the district judge should have recused himself because he presided over a prior proceeding in which Jackson was a defendant is patently without merit. See Andrade v. Chojnacki , 338 F.3d 448, 455 (5th Cir. 2003). For the foregoing reasons, we DISMISS Jackson’s appeal as frivolous. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2; Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Jackson is cautioned that the dismissal by the district court of his suit and the dismissal of his appeal as frivolous count as two strikes under 28 U.S.C.No. 05-10363 -3- § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Jackson is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
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 Annual Report of Olympic Cascade Financial Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for fiscal year ended September 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Robert H. Daskal, Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

            (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
                 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
                 amended; 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/ Robert H. Daskal
                                           ------------------------------
                                           Robert H. Daskal
                                           Acting Chief Financial Officer
                                           December 9, 2005


                                      -45-
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6066
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus AMOS ADAIR STILTNER, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. Glen M. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CR-92-53) Submitted: March 13, 1997 Decided: March 20, 1997 Before HALL, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Amos Adair Stiltner, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Randall Ramseyer, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee. 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 his motion for reduction of sentence. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Stiltner , No. CR-92-53 (W.D. Va. Dec. 18, 1996). We dispense withoral 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
EXHIBIT 3.11




CERTIFICATE OF ELIMINATION


OF THE


SERIES B CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK


OF


NATIONAL HOLDINGS CORPORATION






Pursuant to Section 151(g) of the


General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware








National Holdings Corporation, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware (the “Company”), in accordance with the provisions of Section 151(g) of the Delaware General Corporation Law (the “DGCL”), hereby certifies as follows:


1.          That, pursuant to Section 151 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware and authority granted in the Certificate of Incorporation of the Company, as theretofore amended, the Board of Directors of the Company, by resolution duly adopted, authorized the issuance of a series of twenty thousand (20,000) shares of Series B Convertible Preferred Stock, par value $0.01 per share (the “Series B Preferred Stock”), and established the voting powers, designations, preferences and relative, participating and other rights, and the qualifications, limitations or restrictions thereof, and, on January 11, 2006, filed a Certificate of Designation with respect to such Series B Preferred Stock in the office of the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware.
  2.          That no shares of said Series B Preferred Stock are outstanding and no shares thereof will be issued subject to said Certificate of Designation.
  3.          That the Board of Directors of the Company has adopted the following resolutions:


RESOLVED, that all matters set forth in the Certificate of Designations filed by the Company with the office of the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware on January 11, 2006 (the “Old Certificate”), designating a series of 20,000 shares of Series B Convertible Preferred Stock, par value $0.01 per share, of the Company (the “Old Stock”), are hereby eliminated from the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation;
  
 
 RESOLVED, that the officers of the Company be, and hereby are, authorized and directed to file a certificate with the office of the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware setting forth a copy of these resolutions whereupon all matters set forth in the Old Certificate with respect to the Old Stock shall be eliminated from the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation;


4.          That, accordingly, all matters set forth in the Certificate of Designation with respect to the Series B Preferred Stock be, and hereby are, eliminated from the Certificate of Incorporation, as heretofore amended, of the Company.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate of Elimination to be signed by its duly authorized officer, as of the 22nd day of December, 2010.





NATIONAL HOLDINGS CORPORATIONBy:
/S/ LEONARD J. SOKOLOWLeonard J. Sokolow, President
1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief J udge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 09-3514

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Northern District of Iowa. Joshua James Roberts, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: May 28, 2010 Filed: June 2, 2010

___________ Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Joshua Roberts was charge d with conspiring to manufacture 5 grams or more of actual (pure) methamphetamine, in vi olation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) and 846. He pleaded guilty in accord witha written plea agreement, which contained an appeal waiver. The district court 1 sentenced Roberts to 262 months in prison, the bottom of the advisory Guidelines range. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and seeks to withdraw.-2- We will enforce the appeal waiver in this case because Roberts’s appeal falls within the scope of the waiver, the r ecord shows the requisite knowledge and voluntariness, and enforcing the appeal waiver would not constitute a miscarriage of justice. See United States v. Andis , 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (court should enforce appeal waiver and di smiss appeal where appeal falls within scope of waiver, both plea agreement and waiver were entered into knowingly and voluntarily, and no miscarriage of justice would result); see also United States v. Estrada-Bahena , 201 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (enforcing appeal waiver in Anders case).
Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issue not covered by the waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we dismiss this appeal.

______________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JOANNA DYKES, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. CASE NO.: 4:11cv116-SPM/WCS

ELIZABETH DUDEK, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________/

ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND

Upon consideration, the Stipulated Motion for Local Rule 6.1 Extension for

Filing Defendants’ Response to Complaint (doc. 8) is granted. Defendants shall

have up to and including May 31, 2011, to file their response.

SO ORDERED this 20th day of April, 2011.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:01cr97LAC

GERALD PHARIS

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on FEBRUARY 14, 2006

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE 

Filed byDEFENDANT PRO SE on1/30/06 Doc.# 182

RESPONSES:

on Doc.#

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/Mary Maloy

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Mary Maloy

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 15th day of

February, 2006, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) 

 s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

Senior United States District Judge

Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Case 3:01-cr-00097-LC-MD Document 183 Filed 02/15/06 Page 1 of 1