alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAMES SAMUEL GORDON, Jr., a

married individual,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

INVIVA INC, a Kentucky and Delaware

corporation doing business as American

Life Direct and American Life Insurance

Co of New York; JOHN DOES, I-X,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-35283

D.C. No. 2:06-cv-01537-JCC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 21, 2011** 

Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. 

James Samuel Gordon, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

on the pleadings in his action alleging that defendants’ transmission of unsolicited

FILED

NOV 28 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-35283

commercial email or spam violated federal and state statutes. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Dunlap v. Credit Prot. Ass’n LP, 419

F.3d 1011, 1012 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005) (per curiam), and may affirm on grounds

supported by the record, Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc., 575 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th

Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The district court properly granted judgment on the pleadings as to Gordon’s

claim under the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and

Marketing Act of 2003 (the “CAN-SPAM Act”) because he lacks standing to sue

under the Act. See Virtumundo, 575 F.3d at 1051-57 (explaining in analogous

context that Gordon lacks standing to file a private lawsuit under the CAN-SPAM

Act because he is not an adversely affected, bona fide Internet access provider).

Judgment on the pleadings on the basis of preemption was proper as to

Gordon’s claim under the Washington Commercial Email Marketing Act (the

“CEMA”) because he did not allege the fraud or deception necessary to exempt the

claim from the CAN-SPAM Act’s preemption clause. See id. at 1062-64 (CEMA

claim alleging non-deceptive, immaterial inaccuracies or incomplete, omitted

information in spam emails is preempted by the CAN-SPAM Act, which only

exempts from preemption those state laws that narrowly regulate fraudulent or

deceptive commercial emails). 
3 10-35283

Judgment on the pleadings was proper as to Gordon’s claim under the

Washington Consumer Protection Act (the “CPA”) because Gordon did not

establish several elements of such a claim as a matter of law. See Hangman Ridge

Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins., 719 P.2d 531, 535-37 (Wash. 1986)

(listing CPA claim elements); see also Virtumundo, 575 F.3d at 1065-66 (Gordon

failed to establish elements of nearly identical CPA claim). 

Gordon’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

We deny as moot Gordon’s renewed motion to correct the district court

record by adding additional pleadings. However, in light of Gordon’s pro se

status, we have considered all submitted documents.

AFFIRMED.
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 amended  Quarterly  Report of Applied DNA Sciences,  Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form  10-QSB/A for the period  ending June 30,2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I,  James A.  Hayward,  Principal  Financial  Officer of the  Company,  certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to Applied  DNA  Sciences,  Inc and will be  retained  by Applied  DNA
Sciences,  Inc. and furnished to the Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its
staff upon request.

Date:  October 10, 2006                       By: /s/JAMES A HAYWARD
                                                 -------------------
                                              James A. Hayward
                                              Principal Financial Officer
Order entered March 3, 2020

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05-19-01330-CV

IN RE BILLY JOE CAMPBELL, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 416th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 416-81619-2012



### ORDER

Before Justices Bridges, Osborne, and Carlyle

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this original proceeding.

/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES
JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
Company's  Form 10-K for the three month  transition  period ended  December 31,
1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

      <S>                                         <C>
      <PERIOD-TYPE>                               3-MOS
      <PERIOD-START>                                        OCT-01-1997
      <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                     DEC-31-1998
      <PERIOD-END>                                          DEC-31-1997
      <CASH>                                                197,373,479
      <SECURITIES>                                           39,284,421
      <RECEIVABLES>                                          21,029,763
      <ALLOWANCES>                                           (3,830,342)
      <INVENTORY>                                             2,823,179
      <CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      274,434,988
      <PP&E>                                                428,048,644
      <DEPRECIATION>                                         25,281,860
      <TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        851,203,623
      <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 347,910,566
      <BONDS>                                               475,135,601
      <COMMON>                                               78,462,464
      <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                           0
      <PREFERRED>                                                     0
      <OTHER-SE>                                           (194,178,866)
      <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          851,203,623
      <SALES>                                                23,327,813
      <TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       23,327,813
      <CGS>                                                  14,553,553
      <TOTAL-COSTS>                                          28,248,036
      <OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       (3,387,102)
      <LOSS-PROVISION>                                                0
      <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     15,792,589
      <INCOME-PRETAX>                                       (31,879,262)
      <INCOME-TAX>                                              849,644
      <INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   (32,728,906)
      <DISCONTINUED>                                                  0
      <EXTRAORDINARY>                                                 0
      <CHANGES>                                                       0
      <NET-INCOME>                                          (32,728,906)
      <EPS-PRIMARY>                                                   0
      <EPS-DILUTED>                                                   0


</TABLE>
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2070 Filed: 05/17/19 Entered: 05/17/19 12:33:17 Page 1 of

 3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2070 Filed: 05/17/19 Entered: 05/17/19 12:33:17 Page 2 of

 3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2070 Filed: 05/17/19 Entered: 05/17/19 12:33:17 Page 3 of

 3
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7414

MARY E. FIELDS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus VIRGINIA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-04-197) Submitted: January 13, 2005 Decided: January 19, 2005 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary E. Fields, Appellant Pro Se. Josephine Frances Whalen, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Mary E. Fields, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition for failure to exhaust state remedies and procedural default. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 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 her 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 Fields 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
<PAGE>

NS GROUP, INC.                 June 30, 2003 Form 10-Q              EXHIBIT 32.2

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                         AND EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13A-14(B)

         In connection with the quarterly report of NS Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas
J. Depenbrock, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to my knowledge,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(b) 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 the Company.

August 8, 2003                                          /s/ Thomas J. Depenbrock
                                                        ------------------------
                                                        Thomas J. Depenbrock
                                                        Chief Financial Officer

         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 NS Group, Inc.
and will be retained by NS Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### In the Matter of the Application of the City of Brooklyn, Appellant, for Authority to Acquire the Property and Franchises of The Long Island Water Supply Company, Respondent.

*Metra allowance*— *unauthorized in a proceeding under chapter*481 *of*1892 —• *eminent domain.*

In a proceeding instituted under chapter 481 oí the Laws of 1892, authorizing the city of Brooklyn to condemn and acquire the franchises and property of the Long Island “Water Supply Company, the court has no power to grant an extra allowance.

Such a proceeding is not taken under the General Condemnation Law, and section 8372 of the *Code of Civil*Procedure has no application to it.

Pratt, J., dissenting.

Appeal by the city of Brooklyn from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Kings County Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 2d day of January, 1895, granting the motion of the Long Island Water Supply Company for an extra allowance in a proceeding instituted under chapter 481 of the Laws of 1892, authorizing the city of Brooklyn to condemn and acquire the franchises and property of the Long Island Water Supply Company.

*Herury*JTonge, for the appellant.

*Thomas E. Eem'sall,*for the respondent.

BeowN, P. J.:

I am of the opinion that the court had no power to grant the order appealed from.

*177Section 3240 of the Code of Civil Procedure authorizes an award of costs in special proceedings at the same rates allowed for similar services in actions. But this section does not empower the court to grant an extra allowance. *(Matter of Holden,*126 N. Y. 589.)

This proceeding was not instituted under the General Condemnation Law, but pursuant to chapter 481, Laws of 1892, and, therefore, the order cannot be sustained under section 3372 of the Code. Moreover, the conditions do not exist under which alone costs and allowances can be granted to a property owner under the latter section. That section provides for an offer by the plaintiff to purchase the property which it proposes to take at a specified price. If the offer is not accepted and the compensation awarded by the commission does not exceed the amount of the offer with interest from the time it was made, no costs can be allowed either party, and it is only when the compensation awarded exceeds the amount of the offer with interest as aforesaid, that the court may grant costs and an allowance to the defendant to be paid by the plaintiff.

No offer was made by the city in this case, and none was necessary under the act which authorizes this proceeding.

The order must be reversed, and the motion denied.

Dyicmak, J., concurred; Pratt, J., dissenting.

Order reversed with ten dollars costs, and motion denied.
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, the
undersigned Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Intermet Corporation (the
Company), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2002 (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

/s/ John Doddridge
John Doddridge
August 7, 2002
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 as adopted pursuant to §906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of Celldex Therapeutics, Inc.(the “Company”) hereby certify that to their knowledge and in their respectivecapacities that the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q to which thiscertification is attached (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and that the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: November 10, 2008 |   | By:    | /s/ ANTHONY S. MARUCCI                |
|------------------------------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|                         |   | Name:  | Anthony S. Marucci                    |
|                         |   | Title: | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|                         |   |   |                                  |
| Date: November 10, 2008 |   | By:    | /s/ AVERY W. CATLIN                   |
|                         |   | Name:  | Avery W. Catlin                       |
|                         |   | Title: | Senior Vice President and             |
|                         |   |   | Chief Financial Officer               |

 

 

This certification shall not be deemed “filed” for any purpose, norshall it be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under theSecurities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act. A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed formwithin the electronic version of this written statement required by Section906, has been provided to Celldex Therapeutics, Inc. and will be retained by CelldexTherapeutics, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.

 

----
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Baker, Annunziata and Senior Judge Hodges Argued at Norfolk, Virginia

CLIFTON RAY WOOTEN MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 1059-95-1 BY JUDGE JOSEPH E. BAKER APRIL 9, 1996 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS Robert P. Frank, Judge Steven M. Oser (Oser, Twitty & Associates, on brief), for appellant. Eugene Murphy, Assistant Attorney Geneneral (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Clifton Ray Wooten (appellant) appeals from his bench trial conviction by the Circuit Court of the City of Newport News (trial court) for possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute. The sole issue presented is whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain his conviction. Upon familiar principles, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly

deducible therefrom. Higginbotham v. Commonwealth , 216 Va. 349, 352, 218 S.E.2d 534, 537 (1975). Viewed accordingly, we find the evidence is sufficient to support appellant's conviction. Appellant was arrested for driving without an operator's license. The arrest occurred in a high-drug-activity area.

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.- 2 - During a search of appellant incident to his arrest, police found 1.63 grams of rock cocaine in an orange medicine bottle located in appellant's pocket. The cocaine was divided into numerous small rocks and had a street value of approximately $100 to $140. Police also recovered a pager and $83 in United States currency from appellant. The money was folded separately and divided into groups as follows: (1) one ten dollar bill; (2) two five dollar bills; (3) two ten dollar bills and a one dollar bill; and (4) two five dollar bills, eleven one dollar bills and one twenty

dollar bill. Detective D. A. Graham (Graham), who qualified as an expert in drug distribution, testified that appellant's possession of the cocaine, coupled with the attendant circumstances, was inconsistent with personal use. Graham based his opinion upon his experience working as a narcotics detective, the location at which appellant was arrested, the appearance of the folded money, the packaging of the cocaine, the division of the cocaine into numerous rocks, the presence of the pager, and the fact that police did not find any paraphernalia used to smoke rock cocaine in appellant's possession. From the totality of the evidence, the fact finder could infer beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant possessed cocaine with the intent to distribute. Accordingly, the judgment of the

trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed.
#### United Dressed Beef Company, Respondent, v. James Burrell, Appellant, and Thomas Burrell, Defendant, Copartners, etc.

Motion granted, without costs.

Present — Jenks, P. J., Hirschherg, Burr, Thomas and Carr, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<CIK>  0001011657
<NAME>                                         Titanium Metals Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         20,671
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  109,534
<ALLOWANCES>                                   3,330
<INVENTORY>                                    191,535
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               342,559
<PP&E>                                         425,816
<DEPRECIATION>                                 92,432
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 883,105
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          194,421
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          201,250
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       348,299
<OTHER-SE>                                     59,782
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   883,105
<SALES>                                        480,029
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               483,272
<CGS>                                          454,506
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  454,506
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             7,093
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (33,738)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (12,021)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (31,390)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (31,390)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (1.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (1.00)



</TABLE>
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2127 Filed: 05/20/19 Entered: 05/21/19 10:30:00 Page 1 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2127 Filed: 05/20/19 Entered: 05/21/19 10:30:00 Page 2 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2127 Filed: 05/20/19 Entered: 05/21/19 10:30:00 Page 3 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2127 Filed: 05/20/19 Entered: 05/21/19 10:30:00 Page 4 of

4