alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
2007 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

11-29-2007

Tillio v. Mendelsohn

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 07-1123

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Tillio v. Mendelsohn" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 174.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/174
 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 07-1123

__________

PATRICK D. TILLIO, SR.

 

 Appellant

v.

JULES MENDELSOHN

____________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D. C. No. 06-cv-01977)

District Judge: Hon. Cynthia M. Rufe

______________________

Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

July 25, 2007

Before: BARRY, CHAGARES AND ROTH, Circuit Judges

Opinion filed November 29, 2007

__________

O P I N I O N

___________

PER CURIAM

Appellant Patrick D. Tillio, Sr. appeals from the District Court’s order dismissing his
2

pro se complaint for failure to prosecute. We will affirm.

In May 2006, Tillio filed a pro se complaint apparently arising out of the tax sale of

his property. The next month, Tillio attempted to serve the defendant with the summons and

complaint. No further activity in the case occurred until November 28, 2006, when the

District Court ordered Tillio to show cause within 14 days why the action should not be

dismissed for failure to prosecute. Tillio failed to respond, and the District Court dismissed

the action on December 20, 2006. This timely appeal followed.

Even according Tillio the special consideration afforded to pro se litigants, we

conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion. After several months of

inactivity, the District Court directed Tillio to show cause why the case should not be

dismissed, warned him that failure to comply with its show cause order could result in

dismissal, and provided him an opportunity to respond. Tillio has not explained his failure

to prosecute this action, and there is no indication that he failed to receive the show cause

order or that he did not understand it.

For these reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s order dismissing the case.
**Exhibit**
**32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

| 1.     | the                Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December                31, 2006 (the “Form 10-QSB”) 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 Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all                material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company                as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form                10-QSB                        |

| Dated:                February 14, 2007  | /s/                Chester P. Aldridge  |
|-----------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|
|                                          | Chester                P. Aldridge      |
|                                          | Chief                Executive Officer  |
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Samuel Reyes, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.), rendered on February 1, 1989, unanimously affirmed. Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Asch, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.
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
 
 Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code), the undersigned officer of Finlay Fine
Jewelry Corporation (the “Company”) does hereby certify with respect to the
Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period ended January 31, 2009
(the “Report”) 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.
 
 Date: May
12, 2009
 
 
 /s/ Arthur E.
Reiner
 Arthur E.
Reiner
 Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer
 
 
 The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United
States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document.
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Lelus L. CRAWFORD, Appellant. Lelus L. CRAWFORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 63803, 65831.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

June 13, 1995.

Raymund J. Capelvotieh, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Christine M. Koeot, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before GRIMM, C.J., REINHARD, P.J., and CRAHAN, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from the judgment entered pursuant to his conviction by a jury of possession of a controlled substance in violation of § 195.202.1 RSMo.1994, for which he was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to seven years imprisonment. Defendant also appeals from an order denying, after an evidentiary hearing, his Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief. However, Defendant has abandoned that appeal by failing to brief any errors pertaining to the denial of postconviction relief.

With respect to Defendant’s direct appeal, no error of law appears, and an opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, we have furnished the parties with a memorandum opinion setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
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, Bruce R. Knef, hereby certify, pursuant to and solely for the purpose of 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:

     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.



                                       By /s/ Bruce R. Knef
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Bruce R. Knef
                                          President
                                          Chief Executive Officer and
                                          Chief Financial Officer


                                      August 12, 2008
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-7025

MAHLE Behr USA, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Certification of the Chief Financial Officer**

**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 WMG Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2007 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael D. Fleisher, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities 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. 

Dated: February 6, 2008 

 

 

56
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5945

Camco Manufacturing, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests. 

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices of meetings published under

the ‘‘Government in the Sunshine Act’’ (Pub.

L. 94-409) 5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3).

Sunshine Act Meetings Federal Register

19330

Vol. 60, No. 73

Monday, April 17, 1995

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

[Meeting No. 1475]

TIME AND DATE: 9 a.m. (EDT), April 19,

1995.

PLACE: TVA Chattanooga Office

Complex, 1101 Market Street,

Chattanooga, Tennessee.

STATUS: Open.

AGENDA: Approval of minutes of meeting

held on March 15, 1995.

ACTION ITEMS:

New Business

C—Energy

C1. Adoption of a TVA-side Internal

Energy Management Policy committing TVA

to leadership in efficient and

environmentally sound use of energy, and

delegation of authority to the Chief Operating

Officer, or his designee, to appoint a TVA

representative to the Federal Interagency

Energy Policy Committee to develop and

modify an energy management plan to

achieve the objectives of the policy.

C2. Personal services contract with

NUMANCO to provide radiological control

technicians at TVA nuclear sites.

E—Real Property

E1. Deed modification affecting

approximately 0.074 acre of private land on

Kentucky Lake in Benton County, Tennessee,

Tract NO. XGIR–606, to clear an existing title

problem and resolve a deed violation.

E2. Amendment of the Kentucky Reservoir

Land Management Plan to change the

allocated uses from public recreation and

visual management to commercial recreation

for a 4-acre portion of Tract No. XGIR–6PT

in Livingston County, Kentucky, and sale of

a permanent recreation easement for the

same area to Tullar Enterpries, which is

being designated as Tract No. XGIR–923RE.

E3. Grants of permanent easements to

Hamilton County, Tennessee, for a sewage

pump station and sewerlines affecting

approximately 1.61 acres on Chickamauga

Lake, Tract Nos. XTCR–186PS and 187S.

Information Items

1. Implementation of the decision of the

Secretary of Labor in the wage dispute

involving the International Brotherhood of

Electric Workers resulting from the 56th

Annual Wage Conference in 1991.

2. New investment managers and proposed

new Investment Management Agreements

between the Tennessee Valley Authority

Retirement System, Equitable Asset

Management, Inc., and Bradford & Marzec,

Inc.

3. Revisions to interruptible power

programs offering limited firm power and

modifications to limited interruptible power

and economy surplus power programs.

4. Commodity-based rate for SKW Metals

and Alloys, Inc.

5. Supplement to Contract No. TV–92582V

with Fitzgerald & Company for advertising

support.

6. Settlement of claims and transfer of

contract with Southern Illinois Mining

Company, Inc.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Please call TVA Public Relations at

(615) 632–6000, Knoxville, Tennessee.

Information is also available at TVA’s

Washington Office (202) 898–2999.

Dated: April 12, 1995.

Edward S. Christenbury,

General Counsel and Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–9468 Filed 4–13–95; 3:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 8120–08–M
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Timothy LYNCH, Appellant.

No. 56229.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Jan. 30, 1990.

*505Henry B. Robertson, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Andrea K. Spillars, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

CRIST, Judge.

Defendant appeals his convictions for first degree assault and armed criminal action claiming there was insufficient evidence the victim sustained a “serious physical injury.” We affirm.

On February 27, 1988, defendant and an accomplice planned to rob Favazza’s Restaurant. Defendant was a former employee of Favazza’s. He and accomplice waited outside the restaurant near closing time. Accomplice possessed a pistol; defendant wore a stocking mask and carried a shotgun.

Several restaurant employees had gathered in a parking lot to talk and drink beer as they left work. They noticed two people skulking around and went to investigate. Much to their chagrin, they were greeted by defendant and his shotgun and told to lay on the ground. They did.

Meanwhile, victim, a Favazza’s employee, returned to the parking lot with more liquor. He was told several employees had gone to investigate two suspicious characters and had not returned. Victim set off to join the investigation. He too was greeted by defendant and his shotgun. Victim recognized defendant’s voice and build. Defendant ordered victim to “lay down or I’ll kill you.” Victim opted to run. Accomplice told defendant to “blow him away.” He did. Victim was shot in the back, fell down, got up, ran and jumped into the back of a friend’s pickup truck. He was then taken to the hospital. Meanwhile, defendant and accomplice fled.

Defendant claims there was insufficient evidence victim sustained a “serious physical injury” as required for a first degree assault conviction under § 565.050.1, RSMo 1986. A “serious physical injury” is defined as a “physical injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes serious disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any part of the body.” § 565.002(6), RSMo 1986.

The testimony at trial indicated that hundreds of shotgun pellets were found in victim’s back, buttocks, arm and wrist. He suffered numbness and paresthesia in his hand. He was operated on the day after the shooting. Fifteen pellets were removed. Victim was hospitalized for one week. At the time of trial, victim was scarred and still had pellets in his back.

Viewing the evidence favorably to the State, it was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that a “serious physical injury” occurred. *State v. Simmons,*751 S.W.2d 85, 89[1] (Mo.App.1988); *State v. Quinn,*717 S.W.2d 262, 264-65[l] (Mo.App.1986).

Judgment affirmed.

GARY M. GAERTNER, P.J., and REINHARD, J., concur.
**EXHIBIT32.01**

**Section 1350 Certification**

In connection with thisquarterly report of ML Winton FuturesAccess LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (this “Report”), I, Robert D. Ollwerther, ChiefExecutive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. This Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. The information contained in this Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

Date: August 14, 2007
| By                                    | /s/ ROBERT D. OLLWERTHER |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------------------------|--------|
| Robert D. Ollwerther                  |
| Chief Executive Officer and President |
| (Principal Executive Officer)         |

 

----
Exhibit 23.1
                                                       ------------


             Consent of Independent Accountants



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Prospectuses constituting part of the Registration Statements on
Form S-3 (Nos. 33-64670 and 33-62929) and in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-19155, 33-44140, 33-57717 and 33-
60445) of Conrail Inc. and subsidiaries of our report dated
January 22, 1996, except for paragraphs five and six of Note 12,
which are as of February 21, 1996, included in this Form 10-K.





PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP
Thirty South Seventeenth Street
Philadelphia, PA  19103
March 25, 1996



<PAGE>
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 23-5300 September Term, 2024

1:23-cv-02434-UNA

Filed On: October 8, 2024

Rozina Kimani Muthoka,

Appellant

v.

League of Nations, et al.,

Appellees

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Henderson, Walker, and Childs, Circuit Judges

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P.

34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing, the supplement to

the brief, the motion to appoint counsel, and the motion for an injunction, it is

ORDERED that the motion to appoint counsel be denied. In civil cases,

appellants are not entitled to appointment of counsel when they have not demonstrated

sufficient likelihood of success on the merits. It is 

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for an injunction be denied. Appellant has

not demonstrated any legal entitlement to the relief requested. It is 

FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s October 20,

2023 order be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed appellant’s complaint for

failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Appellant’s complaint did

not set forth “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is

entitled to relief,” which is required in order to “give the defendant fair notice of what the

. . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550

U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (alteration in original). Additionally, appellant has forfeited any

argument that the district court erred in concluding that she may not bring claims on

behalf of a trust or a class, or with respect to the denial of leave to file in forma
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 23-5300 September Term, 2024

pauperis. See United States ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp., 380 F.3d 488, 497

(D.C. Cir. 2004) (“Ordinarily, arguments that parties do not make on appeal are deemed

to have been waived.”).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk

is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution

of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.

P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

BY: /s/

Daniel J. Reidy 

Deputy Clerk

Page 2