alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-30771

ELTON DEVILLE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus FALCO LIME, INC.; CRAIG W. MARKS, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CV-379

- - - - - - - - - - February 19, 1997 Before KING, JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * IT IS ORDERED that the application of Elton Deville for leave to file his brief in its present form is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Deville’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) is DENIED, because his appeal lacks arguable merit and is therefore frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the appeal is DISMISSED.No. 96-30771 - 2 - See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The district court did not err by granting summary judgment to the appellees on Deville’s claims that they obtained other judgments against him by improper means. We caution Deville that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions Deville is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous. IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
EXHIBIT 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the quarterly  report for Diamond Ranch Foods,  Ltd,
on Form  10-QSB for the  quarter  ending  September  30,  2005 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "REPORT"),  the
undersigned,  Joseph Maggio,  Chief Executive  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 the best of my knowledge and belief:

         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 result of
                  operations of the Company.


DATE:     February 3, 2006


By:    /s/ Joseph Maggio
    -------------------------------------------------------------------
       Joseph Maggio, Chairman, CEO, and Director
Exhibit B

Case 2:17-cv-04565-SMB Document 179-2 Filed 05/29/20 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:17-cv-04565-SMB Document 179-2 Filed 05/29/20 Page 2 of 4
ase 2:17-cv-04565-SMB Document 179-2 Filed 05/29/20 Page 3 of 
 2:17-cv-04565-SMB Document 179-2 Filed 05/29/20 Page 4
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   In connection with the Quarterly Report of Learning Quest Technologies, Inc. a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Fred Hall, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350), 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.    /s/ Fred Hall Fred Hall Chief Executive Officer Chief Financial Officer Date: August 13, 2007
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6140

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

MARCO BIRD,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:86−cr−00314−CMH−2)

Submitted: January 13, 2023 Decided: April 18, 2023

Before AGEE, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Jonathan P. Sheldon, SHELDON & FLOOD, PLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for 

Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, Jacqueline R. 

Bechara, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6140 Doc: 17 Filed: 04/18/2023 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Marco Bird appeals the district court’s order denying his petition for a writ of coram 

nobis. 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). Bird sought vacatur of his 1987 conviction for possession with 

intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He argued that his trial 

counsel mistakenly and unreasonably believed he was a United States citizen and 

misadvised him as to the immigration consequences of his plea bargain. And this mistake, 

he argues, constituted ineffective assistance of counsel—a fundamental error warranting 

coram nobis relief. 

A petitioner seeking a writ of coram nobis must establish that (1) a more usual 

remedy, such as habeas corpus, is unavailable, (2) he has a valid basis for not attacking his 

conviction earlier, (3) the consequences of his conviction satisfy Article III’s case-orcontroversy requirement, and (4) the error that is the basis for relief is “of the most 

fundamental character.” Bereano v. United States, 706 F.3d 568, 576 (4th Cir. 2013)

(quoting United States v. Akinsade, 686 F.3d 248, 252 (4th Cir. 2012)). The district court 

determined that Bird failed to satisfy requirements (2) and (4)—namely, he did not show 

that he had a valid basis for not attacking his conviction earlier, nor did he establish a 

fundamental error in his conviction. 

In assessing a district court’s order denying a petition for writ of coram nobis, we 

review factual findings for clear error, questions of law de novo, and the court’s ultimate 

decision to deny the writ for abuse of discretion. United States v. Lesane, 40 F.4th 191, 196 

(4th Cir. 2022). 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6140 Doc: 17 Filed: 04/18/2023 Pg: 2 of 3
3

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not err in 

denying relief. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6140 Doc: 17 Filed: 04/18/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
--· FILEO __ LODGED 

-r==aa:.:.R.:=.:EC::.::.E:.:.:IVE:.:::,D-==~C~Opy 

NOV 2 O 2019 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

9 United States of America, 

10 · Plaintiff, 

11 V. 

12 Scott Daniel Warren, 

13 Defendant. 

14 

. 15 

' 

No. CR-18-00223-TUC-RCC(DTF) 

RETURN OF EXHIBITS 

; 16 Receipt is hereby acknowledged for the exhibits submitted and or admitted during the Jury 

17 Trial conducted 11/12/2019 through 11/20/2019, 

: 18 3B, 3C, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 34, 35, 36, 37, 

' 

19 38,3~40,41,4~43,44,4~,4~4~48,4~6~7~71,74,75, 8~ 88, 8~ 11~ 120,121, 

'20 122, 123 and 125. 

, 21 

· 22 . Exhibits shall be kept in my/our possession until all appeal time has run in this matter or 

. 23 · until further Order of the Court . 

. 24 

; 25 

' 

I 

I 26 

27 

28 

Dated: NOV 2

. 

O 201 

By: 

~ 

.'1⁄2 . . . ... Walters/Glenn 

McCormick . . · Assistant United States Attorney 

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-DTF Document 409 Filed 11/20/19 Page 1 of 1
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. David J. BRADLEY, Appellant.

No. WD 40440.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

April 25, 1989.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 30, 1989.

K. Louis Caskey, Kansas City, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., John P. Pollard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before SHANGLER, P.J., and MANFORD and LOWENSTEIN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Direct appeal from a jury conviction for murder, first degree, in violation of § 565.020, RSMo 1986 and armed criminal action, in violation of § 571.015, RSMo 1986.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S MINUTES 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA – TUCSON 

U.S. Magistrate Judge: Jacqueline M. 

Rateau Date: March 21, 2019 

USA v. Robert Francis Krebs Case Number: CR-18-00263-001-TUC-JGZ (JR)

Assistant U.S. Attorney: Raquel Arellano

Attorney for Defendant: Jorge Leonardo Costales, Assistant Federal Public Defender 

Interpreter: N/A 

Defendant: ☒ Not Present ☒ Custody 

 

STATUS CONFERENCE Re Determination of Mental Competency: 

The Court confirms that all parties have received the report by Dr. Cochrane. 

Based on the report, the Government would like the Court to enter an order of competency and move 

forward with a trial date and plea deadline. 

Defense counsel has concern with the report and requests a hearing with Dr. Cochran present. 

The Court makes a preliminary finding of competency. (Formal order to issue.) The stay will remain 

in place until further order of the Court. 

Said finding will be revisited upon Defendant’s return to the District of Arizona. 

A formal order to transport Defendant back to this District shall issue. 

The Court sets a Status Conference for 5/7/2019 at 10:00 AM. 

Dr. Cochrane may appear via video conference. 

Recorded By Courtsmart

Deputy Clerk Amanda Smith 

Status Conference 07 

min 

Start: 3:12 PM 

Stop: 3:19 PM 

Case 4:18-cr-00263-JGZ-JR Document 49 Filed 03/21/19 Page 1 of 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 22 - 0 112

____________________ WATER FOR FLATHEAD’S FUTURE Inc., AMY WALLER, STEVEN MOORE, and CYNTHIA EDSTROM , P la intiffs and Appell ees , v. MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OFENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, an agency of the State of Montana Defendant and Appell an

t and MONTANA ARTESIAN WATER COMPANY, Intervenor- Defendant and Appellant O R D E R Upon consideration of the Appellants’ unopposed Joint Motion to Consolidate Cause Nos. DA 22 - 0112 and DA 22 - 0113, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Cause Nos. DA 22 - 0112 and DA 22 - 0113 are hereby consolidated under Cause No. DA 22 - 0112. The captioning of the consolidated matters is otherwise unchanged.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 18 2022

04/18/2022
#### KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION, CLE COMMISSION, Movant, v. Susan Kay CRASS, Respondent.

No. 92-SC-1043-KB.

Supreme Court of Kentucky.

Feb. 18, 1993.

ORDER

Pursuant to SCR 3.669, this Court finds that Susan Kay Crass, respondent, has not *711shown cause for her failure to comply with the minimum continuing legal education requirements of SCR 3.661.

Respondent is hereby notified of her proposed suspension from the practice of law twenty (20) days from the date of this order, pursuant to SCR 3.668(2), unless before that date she complies with the requirements of SCR 3.667(2), including her application for extension of time and payment of the filing fee.

Upon failure to timely comply with the terms of this order, it is ordered that respondent, Susan Kay Crass, is suspended from the practice of law pursuant to SCR 3.668(2).

Entered: February 18, 1993.

/s/ Robert F. Stephens Chief Justice
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 110 (Thursday, June 6, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 28890]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14135]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-387]


Certain Self-Powered Fiber Optic Modems; Notice of Change of 
Commission Investigative Attorney

    Notice is hereby given that, as of this date, Steven A. Glazer, 
Esq. of the Office of Unfair Import Investigations is designated as the 
Commission investigative attorney in the above-captioned investigation 
instead of John M. Whealan, Esq.

    Dated: May 30, 1996.
Lynn I. Levine,
Director, Office of Unfair Import Investigations.
[FR Doc. 96-14135 Filed 6-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 19 (Monday, January 29, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 2848]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1462]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT


Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee; Cancellation of Open 
Committee Meeting

    According to the provisions of section 10 of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), notice is hereby given that the meeting 
of the Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee scheduled for 
Thursday, February 22, 1996, has been canceled.
    Information on other meetings can be obtained by contacting the 
Committee's Secretary, Office of Personnel Management, Federal 
Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee, Room 5559, 1900 E Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20415 (202) 606-1500.

    Dated: January 19, 1996.
Anthony F. Ingrassia,
Chairman, Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 96-1462 Filed 1-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 105 (Thursday, May 30, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 27129]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13475]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Veterans' Advisory Committee on Education, Notice of Meeting

    The Department of Veterans Affairs gives notice that a meeting of 
the Veterans' Advisory Committee on Education, authorized by 38 U.S.C. 
3692, will be held on June 20 and 21, 1996, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. 
on Thursday, June 20, and from 8:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on Friday, June 
21. The meeting will take place at the Department of Veterans Affairs 
Central Office, Room 530, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. The 
purpose of the meeting will be to discuss Veterans Affairs' education 
issues.
    On Thursday the Committee will discuss the increasing utilization 
of the Montgomery GI Bill benefits. On Friday the Committee will hold a 
planning session and discuss future projects of the Committee.
    The meeting will be open to the public up to the seating capacity 
of the conference room. Due to limited seating capacity, it will be 
necessary for those wishing to attend to contact Ms. June Schaeffer, 
Assistant Director, Education Policy and Program Administration, (phone 
202-273-7186) prior to June 14, 1996.
    Interested persons may attend, appear before, or file statements 
with the Committee. Statements, if in written form, may be filed before 
or within 10 days after the meeting. Oral statements will be heard at 
10:00 a.m. on June 21, 1996.

    Dated: May 21, 1996.

    By Direction of the Secretary.
Hayward Bamister,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 96-13475 Filed 5-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
# STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURTOFAPPEAL,FIRSTCIRCUIT JADE SONNIER VERSUS LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS In Re: Jade Sonnier, applying

Judicial District Court, No. 729170. NO. 2023 CW 0493 

### AUGUST 14, 2023 for supervisory Parish of East writs, 19th Baton Rouge, BEFORE: McCLENDON, HESTER, AND MILLER, JJ.

WRIT DENIED. Mcclendon, J., concurs. disposition.

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT 

# tl.CJ) DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT FOR THE COURT CHH SMM This matter is proceeding toward
Exhibit 99.1

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 Prime Companies, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Norbert J. Lima,
Chief Executive 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 Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



/s/ Norbert J. Lima
---------------------
Norbert J. Lima
Chief Executive Officer
April 14, 2004
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-60021

Summary Calendar

MICHAEL TILLMAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

SOUTHERN WOOD PRESERVING OF HATTIESBURG INC,

Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Mississippi

No. 2:07-CV-170

Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-appellant Michael Tillman appeals the district court’s grant of a

partial summary judgment in this Title VII suit in which he alleges that his

employer retaliated against him for filing a previous discrimination suit, created

a hostile work environment, and constructively discharged him. The district

court’s order, denominated “Judgment,” dismissed Tillman’s constructive

discharge claim and his claims based on events occurring before September 17,

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 28, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
2

2005. Other claims remain to be adjudicated. As Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 54(b) provides, “any order or other decision, however designated, that

adjudicates fewer than all the claims . . . does not end the action as to any of the

claims . . . .” Although the district court did enter a judgment on the claims that

it disposed of, the court did not expressly determine that there is no just reason

for delay, as required by Rule 54(b). Accordingly, we have no jurisdiction and

this appeal is DISMISSED.

Appeal DISMISSED. Costs shall be borne by Tillman.
1

 Rule 10 (Court of Appeals). Affirmance Without Opinion. The Court, with the

concurrence of all judges participating in the case, may affirm the action of the trial court by

order without rendering a formal opinion when an opinion would have no precedential value

and one or more of the following circumstances exist and are dispositive of the appeal:

(1) the Court concurs in the facts as found or as found by

necessary implication by the trial court.

(2) there is material evidence to support the verdict of the jury.

(3) no reversible error of law appears.

 Such cases may be affirmed as follows: “Affirmed in accordance with Court of Appeals

Rule 10(a).”

FILED

June 15, 1998

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate C ourt Clerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

WESTERN SECTION AT JACKSON

 ______________________________________________

JOHN ALAN DU BAN, SR., FROM THE SHELBY COUNTY

CIRCUIT COURT COURT

No. 60730

Plaintiff-Appellant, THE HONORABLE KAREN R.

WILLIAMS, JUDGE

Vs. C.A. No. 02A01-9712-CV-00314

AFFIRMED 

GARY R. WILKINSON, John Alan Du Ban, Sr., Pro Se

Defendant-Appellee. Harris, Shelton, Dunlap & Cobb

James L. Kirby of Memphis

For Appellee

____________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

 AND ORDER

___________________________________________________________________________

CRAWFORD, J.

This appeal involves a suit by a party to a previous divorce case against the other party’s

attorney for actions taken by the attorney in that proceeding. Plaintiff, John Alan Du Ban, Sr.,

appeals the order of the trial court granting summary judgment to defendant, Gary Wilkinson,

his ex-wife’s attorney.

From our review of the entire record in this case, we conclude that this is a case that is

proper for disposition pursuant to Rule 10(a), Rules of the Court of Appeals.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the order of the trial court is affirmed in

accordance with Court of Appeals Rule 10(a). Costs of appeal are assessed against the appellant

for which execution may issue, if necessary.

_________________________________

W. FRANK CRAWFORD, 
2

PRESIDING JUDGE, W.S.

__________________________________

ALAN E. HIGHERS, JUDGE

__________________________________

DAVID R. FARMER, JUDGE
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, John A. Roberts, the Chief Financial Officer of InfoLogix, Inc.(the “Company”), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

·                  the Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Form 10-Q”), 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 78o(d)); and

 

·                  the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Dated:  May 15, 2009

 

 
| /s/ John A. Roberts     |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| John A. Roberts         |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
#### William COLEMAN, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 41240.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

May 2, 1989.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 30, 1989.

Application to Transfer Denied Aug. 1, 1989.

Thomas J. Marshall, Public Defender, Moberly, for movant-appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., John P. Pollard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before BERREY, P.J., and MANFORD and NUGENT, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from the denial of a Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).