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

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

MAY 2, 2011

JOHN LEY

 CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 10-13548

Non-Argument Calendar 

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cr-00141-CG-M-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DIEP VU HO, 

a.k.a. Dumbo, 

a.k.a. Quoc T. Ho,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Southern District of Alabama

 ________________________

(May 2, 2011)

Before BARKETT, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Raymond A. Pierson, appointed counsel for Diep Vu Ho in this direct

criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the
appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct.

1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals

that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issue of merit,

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Ho’s convictions and sentences

are AFFIRMED.

2
#### Francis SHARPE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF DALLAS; Charles V. Grahmann, Reverend, His Predecessors and Successors, as Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas; Windle Turley; Randal Mathis; Monte Fite, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-11204.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 18, 2003.

*381Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Francis Sharpe appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing his action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 for lack of jurisdiction under the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine.1 Sharpe argues that his federal action does not amount to an attack on the prior state court judgment because his federal claims are not inextricably intertwined with the merits of the state court suit.

Under the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine, “[w]hen issues raised in a federal court are inextricably intertwined with a state judgment and the court is in essence being called upon to review the state-court decision, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to conduct such a review.”2 Although Sharpe argues that his federal suit differs from his state case because his federal complaint claims that the defendants violated his civil rights, “litigants may not obtain review of state court actions by filing complaints about those actions in lower federal courts cast in the form of civil rights suits.”3

Sharpe’s pleadings belie his argument that the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine is inapplicable: His complaint specifically requests a declaratory judgment that certain discarded church documents belong to him and should be returned to him. The state court had previously granted summary judgment to the defendants on Sharpe’s claims requesting return of the documents. Sharpe’s federal action is clearly inextricably intertwined with the judgment in his prior state court case. Therefore, the district court’s judgment of dismissal is AFFIRMED.

The motions to dismiss filed by defendants Turley and Fite are DENIED AS MOOT.

*

 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.

1

. *See D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman,*460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983); *Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.,*263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923).

2

. *See Davis v. Bayless,*70 F.3d 367, 375 (5th Cir. 1995) ("When issues raised in a federal court are inextricably intertwined with a state judgment and the court is in essence being called upon to review the state-court decision, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to conduct such a review.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

3

. *Hale*v. *Harney,*786 F.2d 688, 691 (5th Cir.1986).
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 29, 2012

s0627 

# Order

June 29, 2012

144944

RANDI GAGNON, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 144944 COA: 303449 Wayne CC Family Division: GARY GLOWACKI, 06-660387-DP Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 6, 2012 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

M ARILYN 

### K ELLY



### , J., would grant leave to appeal.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-50066

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SEDRICK DEMON MCCARTHER,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:12-CR-296-1

Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Sedrick Demon McCarther appeals his 60-month

above-guideline sentence, claiming that the sentence is greater than necessary

to achieve the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and is thus unreasonable. 

We reviewsentences for substantive reasonableness under an abuse of discretion

standard. United States v. Johnson, 619 F.3d 469, 471-72 (5th Cir. 2010). 

McCarther’s complaint that the drug offense guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, is not

empirically based is foreclosed by our precedent. See United States v. Duarte,

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 24, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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.

 Case: 13-50066 Document: 00512417976 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/24/2013
No. 13-50066

569 F.3d 528-29 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d

357 366-67 (5th Cir. 2009). 

Pointing out that he received a 36-month revocation sentence to run

consecutively to his instant sentence, McCarther contends that a shorter

sentence provides adequate deterrence. He also asserts that his personal history

supports a lesser sentence, noting that he had a close relationship with his

mother and siblings, struggled with substance abuse, and is attempting to find

ways to support his children. 

The record shows that the district court heard counsel’s argument on

McCarther’s behalf regarding his substance abuse problems and the lack of

aggravating circumstances. The court’s remarks also reflect that it gave greater

weight to McCarther’s long and serious criminal history, his continual

recidivism, his apparent need for greater deterrence, and the goal of protecting 

the public from his wrongdoing. The district court considered the § 3553(a)

factors and gave individualized, case-specific reasons for its sentence. The

upward variance was not an abuse of discretion. See Johnson, 619 F.3d at

471-72; United States v. McElwee, 646 F.3d 328, 338 (5th Cir. 2011). The

sentence is AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 13-50066 Document: 00512417976 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/24/2013
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

COMMODITIES EXPORT COMPANY,

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,

v.

CITY OF DETROIT, UNITED STATES OF

AMERICA, 

Defendants/Cross-Defendants,

and

DETROIT INTERNATIONAL BRIDGE

COMPANY,

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff/CrossPlaintiff/Third Party Plaintiff,

v.

WALTER LUBIENSKI and DEAN AYTES,

Third Party Defendants.

Case No. 09-CV-11060-DT

 /

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING AS MOOT COUNTER DEFENDANT 

AND THIRD PARTY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO

THE CLAIMS OF THE DIBC

Before the court is a “Motion for Summary Judgment as to the Claims of the

DIBC,” filed by Counter Defendant Commodities Export Company and Third Party

Defendants Walter Lubienski and Dean Aytes. The motion is opposed by Counter

Plaintiff/Third Party Plaintiff Detroit International Bridge Company (“DIBC”). The court

has issued an order dismissing without prejudice all state law claims in this case. Thus,

the issues raised in this motion are now moot. Accordingly,
2

IT IS ORDERED that the “Motion for Summary Judgment as to the Claims of the

DIBC” [Dkt. # 54] is DENIED AS MOOT.

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: September 30, 2010

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, September 30, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C3 ORDERS\09-11060.COMMODITIES.DenyAsMootCounterClaimSJ.wpd
Fialka

Feldman v. Oakland University Board of Trustees Doc. 39 Att. 15

Dockets.Justia.com
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR R EHEARING

Appellate case name: D. Patrick Smitherman v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline

Appellate case number: 01

- 13

- 00 635

- CV

Trial court case number: 2010

- 10256

Trial court: 129th District Court of Harris County

It is ordered that Appell ant ’ s Motion for Rehearing is denied

.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Rebeca Huddle

Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Justices Massengale , Brown, and Huddle

Date: March 31, 2015
Exhibit 32  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Diane S. Button, President, Treasurer, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officers of Cactus Ventures, Inc., (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:  (1) the amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A, of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2009 (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 78 o(d)); and  (2) the information contained in the amended Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date: December 28, 2009  /s/ Diane S. Button Diane S. Button President and Chief Executive Officer Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been furnished to Cactus Ventures, Inc. and will be retained by Cactus Ventures, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
SunTrust Mortgage, Inc.                      RALPH B. CARRIGAN
Mail Code CC-502                              President, Chief Operating Officer
P.O. Box 4333
Atlanta, GA 30302
Tel (770)352-5610
Fax (770) 352-5832

SUNTRUST

January 30, 1998

Arthur Andersen LLP
133 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Dear Sirs:

As of and for the year ended  December 31,  1997,  SunTrust  Mortgage,  Inc. has
complied in all material respects with the minimum servicing standards set forth
in the Mortgage  Bankers  Association of America's  UNIFORM  SINGLE  ATTESTATION
PROGRAM FOR MORTGAGE BANKERS. As of and for this same period, SunTrust Mortgage,
Inc.  had in effect a  fidelity  bond and  errors  and  omissions  policy in the
amounts of $100,000,000 and $20,000,000 respectively.

Sincerely,
/s/Ralph B. Carrigan
Ralph B. Carrigan 
President/COO

RBC/amg
[No. 34087.

Department One.

July 5, 1957.]

#### Chauncey E. Johnson, *Appellant,*v. The City of Seattle, *Respondent.*
      *1*

*E. K. Marohn,*for appellant.

*A. C. Van Soelen*and *C. V. Hoard,*for respondent.

Reported in 313 P. (2d) 676.

*544Finley, J.

In this action, the plaintiff is seeking pay for overtime work, allegedly performed while he was employed as a sanitation patrolman on the defendant’s Cedar River watershed. He alleges that, under the applicable city ordinances, he is entitled to payment for work performed in excess of eight hours per day on a five-day week basis, or in excess of forty hours per week; that he has been paid only a salary of approximately three hundred dollars per month, and that his demands for certification on the payroll for the overtime work and payment therefor have been refused. The defendant’s demurrer to the complaint was sustained, and a judgment of dismissal was entered. Plaintiff appeals.

The parties concede that the applicable ordinance of the city of Seattle *(cf.*Ordinance 83600 of the city of Seattle) provides:

> “Eight hours shall constitute a day’s work for all employees of the City, *except*Policemen, Firemen, Harbormen, Zoo Guards, *Sanitation Patrolmen,*and supervisory and administrative employees, as determined by the head of the department, and none with such exception shall be required or permitted to labor more than eight hours in any one calendar day except in case of extraordinary emergency, caused by fire, flood or danger to life and property, or unless the head of the department, or some person duly authorized by him, deems such work to be urgently necessary and its non-performance will cause loss or damage to the city. No extraordinary emergency shall exist where labor is or can be found available immediately to take the place of labor which has already been employed for eight hours in any one calendar day.” (Italics ours.)

Appellant’s two assignments of error raise but one question; i.e., whether the ordinance provides for overtime pay for *“Sanitation Patrolmen.”*The ordinance is not exceptionally well drafted: (a) as to form, and (b) as to the choice of language used; nevertheless, its meaning appears to us to be clear and unambiguous. The key to its interpretation and application in the instant case is to be found in the very first portion of the ordinance which provides specifically that “Eight hours shall constitute a day’s *545work for *all employees*of the City, *except*. . . *Sanitation Patrolmen,*...” (Italics ours.) Thus, appellant is specifically excluded from benefiting from the eight-hour day, forty-hour week provisions of the city ordinances.

Appellant argues that the ordinance involves an arbitrary classification and discriminates unconstitutionally against him. The point is raised for the first time on this appeal, and we will not consider it. *State ex*rel. *York v. Board of County Com’rs,*28 Wn. (2d) 891, 184 P. (2d) 577, 172 A. L. R. 1001, and cases cited therein.

The judgment of the trial court is hereby affirmed.

Hill, C. J., Mallery, Weaver, and Ott, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-1401
BRENDA L. MCINTYRE; TAMMY M. CARPENTER; DONNA W. JOYNER; LISA MCCALL, individually and on behalf of all other persons sim ilarly situated, Plaintiffs, GEORGE I. REID, Defendant - Appellant, versus MICHAEL ESPY, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, Defendant - Appellee, and NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Richard C. Erwin, Senior District Judge. (CA-94-184-2) Submitted: May 15, 1997 Decided: May 28, 1997 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.2 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George I. Reid, Appellant Pro Se. Gill Paul Beck, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his motion for administration of assets. We have reviewed the record andthe district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Reid v. United States Dep't of Agric. , No. CA-94-184-2 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 19, 1997). 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
Exhibit 32  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Cornelius Hofman, President, Treasurer, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Way Cool Imports, Inc., (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:  (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2010 (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 78 o(d)); and  (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date: May 17, 2010  /s/ Cornelius Hofman Cornelius Hofman President and Chief Executive Officer Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been furnished to Way Cool Imports, Inc. and will be retained by Way Cool Imports, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

THE WEATHER UNDERGROUND, INC., 

a Michigan corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

NAVIGATION CATALYST SYSTEMS, INC., 

a Delaware corporation,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 09-10756

HON. MARIANNE O. BATTANI

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO COMPEL

PRODUCTION OF ASSET TRANSFER DOCUMENTATION AND DENYING 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW AS DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to Compel

Production of Asset Transfer Documentation (Doc. No. 282) and Motion for Leave to

Withdraw as Defendants’ Counsel (Doc. No. 283). For the reasons stated on the record

at the telephone conference held May 16, 2012, the motions are DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Marianne O. Battani 

MARIANNE O. BATTANI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Date: May 17, 2012

2:09-cv-10756-MOB-VMM Doc # 290 Filed 05/17/12 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 7598
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the above date a copy of this Order was served upon all

parties of record, electronically.

s/Bernadette M. Thebolt

Case Manager

2:09-cv-10756-MOB-VMM Doc # 290 Filed 05/17/12 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 7599
#### Rita D. GLOVER, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, v. Mark OSTENFELD, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, and United of Omaha Life Insurance Co., Cross-Respondent.

No. 65753.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

April 4, 1995.

Henry B. Robertson, St. Louis, for appellant.

Donald V. Nangle, Arthur G. Muegler, Jr., Clayton, for respondent.

Kathi Lynne Chestnut, Evans & Dixon, St. Louis, for cross-respondent.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Mark Ostenfeld (Ostenfeld), Public Administrator for the City of St. Louis, appeals from a judgment entitling Rita D. Glover (Rita) to the proceeds of the life insurance policy on her husband William held by United of Omaha Life Insurance Company and she appeals the denial of her claims for vexatious delay, attorney fees and costs. Rita’s motions to dismiss Ostenfeld’s appeal and for sanctions are denied.

An extended opinion would not have prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
**Exhibit 15.2**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-107201) pertaining to the Ispat International N.V. Global Stock Option Plan of our report dated February 9, 2005, with respect to the consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income,shareholders’ equity and cash flows of Mittal Steel Holdings N.V. and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2004, included in this Annual Report (Form 20-F/A) for the year ended December 31, 2006. 

Rotterdam, The Netherlands 

June 28, 2007 

for Ernst & Young Accountants 

/s/ M. Coenradie
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-102593, 333-104958, 333-107756 and 333-108889 on Form S-3 and Registration Statement Nos. 333-160116 on Form S-8 of our reports dated March 16, 2010,relating to the financial statements of Dot Hill Systems Corp. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the adoption of Financial AccountingStandards Board (FASB) Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) Topic 740, *Income Taxes*, effective January 1, 2007), and the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report onForm 10-K of Dot Hill Systems Corp. and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2009. 

/s/    DELOITTE& TOUCHE LLP 

San Diego, CA 

March 16, 2010