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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-7294

BERWYN ROBINSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ALEXANDER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; KENNETH BEAVER,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

HARRIS,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, 

at Statesville. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (5:18-cv-00072-FDW)

Submitted: April 4, 2019 Decided: April 9, 2019

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Berwyn Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Berwyn Robinson appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 (2012) complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with its prior order. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). We review a district court’s dismissal under Rule 41(b) for abuse 

of discretion. Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989). We have reviewed the 

record and find no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by 

the district court. Robinson v. Alexander Corr. Inst., No. 5:18-cv-00072-FDW

(W.D.N.C. Sept. 18, 2018). We deny Robinson’s motion for appointment of counsel.

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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

DAJUAN KELLEY, Case No. 09-CV-12456 

 Plaintiff, Hon. John Corbett O’Meara 

v. 

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, et al., 

 Defendants. 

________________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

 

 Plaintiff Dajuan Kelley filed a pro se complaint on June 22, 2009, along with an 

application to proceed in forma pauperis. The court finds Plaintiff’s application to proceed in 

forma pauperis to be facially sufficient and, therefore, grants Plaintiff’s motion to proceed 

without prepayment of fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); Gibson v. R.G. Smith Co., 915 F.2d 260, 

262 (6th Cir. 1990). 

 Once a court grants a plaintiff permission to proceed in forma pauperis, it must review 

the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court shall dismiss the complaint at any time 

if the court finds that it fails “to state a claim for which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915 

(e)(2)(B)(ii). The court’s determination of failure to state a claim under § 1915(e) is the same as 

its determination under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 1 Moore’s Fed. Practice § 4.41[3]. Pro se

plaintiff’s pleadings are liberally construed. Middleton v. McGinnis, 860 F.Supp.2d 391, 392 

(E.D. Mich. 1994) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). However, even a pro se 

5:09-cv-12456-JCO-RSW Doc # 4 Filed 07/23/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 9
plaintiff’s complaint “must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the 

material elements to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory.” Scheid v. Farmer 

Candy Shops, Inc., 89 F.2d 434, 436 (6th Cir. 1988). Conclusory and unsupported statements are 

insufficient to state a claim. Dellis v. Corrections Corp. of America, 25 F.3d 508, 511 (6th Cir. 

2001). See also Hendrock v. Gilbert, 68 Fed. Appx. 573, 574 (6th Cir. 2003) (“The court is not 

required to accept non-specific factual allegations and inferences or unwarranted legal 

conclusions”). 

To the extent the court understands Plaintiff’s complaint, Plaintiff would like the court to 

notify the FBI of various crimes committed against him. There is no viable legal theory which 

would require this court to notify the FBI of alleged crimes, and so Plaintiff has failed to state a 

claim for which relief may be granted. 

The remainder of Plaintiff’s complaint is unintelligible, and the court cannot determine 

any basis for a claim or subject matter jurisdiction. 

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 

pauperis is GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be DISMISSED as frivolous and for 

failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

Based on the preceding order, any appeal by Plaintiff would be frivolous and not in good 

faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Goodell v. Anthony, 17 F.Supp.2d 796, 802 (E.D. Mich. 2001). 

Date: July 23, 2009 s/John Corbett O’Meara

 United States District Judge 

5:09-cv-12456-JCO-RSW Doc # 4 Filed 07/23/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 10
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Gary Spaniak, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Electric Car Company, Inc.;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)

Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or cause such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

(c)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; 

(d)

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditor and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: November 20, 2009

/s/ Gary Spaniak

Gary Spaniak

Chief Executive Officer
May 22, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

LOUIS DOUGLAS ROGERS, Appellant

NO. 14-12-00182-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard ON REMAND from the Court of Criminal Appeals 

on the transcript of the record of the court below. The record reveals no error in the 

judgment requiring reversal, but there was error in the judgment as entered, which 

is capable of reformation by this Court. Therefore, the judgment is modified to 

reflect court costs of $564.

The Court orders the judgment be AFFIRMED as MODIFIED.

We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**I, David Mathieson, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of RSC Holdings Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control overfinancial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controlsand procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and proceduresto be designed under oursupervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating tothe registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during theperiod in which this report isbeing prepared;  b) [Not Applicable]  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented inthis report our conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation;and  d) Disclosed in this report any changein the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reportingthat occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likelyto materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the designor operation of internal controlover financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material,that involves management or otheremployees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.Date: May 1, 2008         /s/ David Mathieson   David Mathieson   Senior Vice President, andChief Financial Officer
<PAGE>   1
                                                                Exhibit 10.9

                            Schedule of Documents
                           Substantially Similar to
                                 Exhibit 10.5


1.  Construction Contract between Jameson Inns, Inc. and Jameson Development
    Company, LLC dated October 1, 1996 for construction of inns in Auburn,
    Alabama; Laurinburg, North Carolina; Decherd and Tullahoma, Tennessee and
    expansion of existing inns in Florence, Alabama and Gaffney, South
    Carolina.
 
2.  Construction Contract between Jameson Inns, Inc. and Jameson Development
    Company, LLC dated February 4, 1997 for construction of inns in Jasper,
    Oxford, Sylacauga and Tuscaloosa, Alabama; Dublin and Warner Robins,
    Georgia; Asheboro, Sanford and Wilson, North Carolina; and Clinton,
    Tennessee.
 
3.  Construction Contract between Jameson Inns, Inc. and Jameson Development
    Company, LLC dated November 18, 1997 for construction of inns in
    Kingsland, Macon and Perry, Georgia; Dunn,  Lenoir and Smithfield, North
    Carolina; Spartanburg and Duncan, South Carolina; Johnson City, Tennessee
    and expansion of existing inns in LaGrange, Georgia and Forest City, North
    Carolina.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

R. THERESA CLEVELAND,

Plaintiff,

v.

KARYN JEFFERSON and QUEST

DIAGNOSTICS,

Defendants.

 /

Case No. 09-11691

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

JUDGMENT

This matter is before the Court on Quest Diagnostics’s Motion for Summary

Judgment. Karyn Jefferson was previously dismissed from the case. For the reasons set

forth in an opinion issued this date,

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Quest Diagnostics’s

Motion for Summary Judgment is granted and Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED.

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Date: March 10, 2010

copies to:

R. Theresa Cleveland

15300 Spring Garden

Detroit, Michigan 48205

George Mesritz, Esq.
#### COLLINS PIANO CO., Inc., Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Isaac TILLMAN, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 14417.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Feb. 13, 1933.

A. II. Wagner -and Wm. Fallon, Jr., both of New Orleans, for appellant.

Sanders, Baldwin, Yiosca & Haspel, of New Orleans, for appellee.

WESTERFIELD, J.

This is a suit for $111, the balance due on the purchase price of a radio. The defendant resists payment upon the ground that the radio was bought by some one else, one Huey Peters. The plaintiff counters by claiming that Huey Peters and Isaac Tillman are one and the same individual, the name “Peters” being assumed by Tillman when it suited his whim or convenience.

The evidence as to whether Tillman masqueraded as Peters is conflicting, although it preponderates in favor of the affirmative; ■but .there is no doubt in our minds but that the defendant Isaac Tillman bought the radio. Whether as Peters or Tillman is immaterial, for he is positively identified by ■at least three witnesses. This was the view of the trial court, as indicated by its judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and our conclusion is that it is correct.

Consequently, and for the reasons herein assigned, the judgment appealed from will be affirmed.

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**WABCO HOLDINGS INC.**

**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 WABCO Holdings Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jacques Esculier, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that 

(i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and 

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods covered in the Report. 

 

Dated: May 8, 2008
Exhibit 32

      Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
                         Pursuant to Section 906 of the
                           Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

     Dana C.  Gavenda,  Chief  Executive  Officer and President of FSB Community
Bankshares,  Inc., a federal  corporation  (the "Company") and Kevin D. Maroney,
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer of the Company,  each certify
in his capacity as an officer of the Company that he has reviewed the  quarterly
report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter  ended June 30,  2007 (the  "Report")  and
that to the best of his knowledge:

     1.  the Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Sections 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:  August 14, 2007                   /s/ Dana C. Gavenda
                                         -------------------------
                                         Dana C. Gavenda
                                         President and Chief Executive Officer



Date:  August 14, 2007                   /s/ Kevin D. Maroney
                                         -------------------------
                                         Kevin D. Maroney
                                         Senior Vice President and Chief
                                         Financial Officer




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

                                       24
#### Antonio Joseph CHEVELLA, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 49424.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Sept. 5, 1995.

Susan L. Hogan, Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., David G. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before LAURA DENVIR STITH, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and HANNA, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Antonio Chevella appeals his guilty plea to one count each of robbery in the first degree, § 569.020, RSMo 1986, and armed criminal action, § 571.015, RSMo 1986, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4059 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4059

   To provide for the acquisition of certain property on Santa Cruz 
                                Island.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 11, 1996

Mrs. Seastrand introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide for the acquisition of certain property on Santa Cruz 
                                Island.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
    Section 202 of Public Law 96-199 (16 U.S.C. 410ff-1) is amended by 
adding the following new subsection at the end thereof:
    ``(e)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, effective 90 
days after the date of enactment of this subsection, all right, title, 
and interest in and to, and the right to immediate possession of, the 
real property on the eastern end of Santa Cruz Island which is known as 
the Gherini Ranch is hereby vested in the United States, except for the 
reserved rights of use and occupancy set forth in Instrument No. 90-
027494 recorded in the Official Records of the County of Santa Barbara, 
California.
    ``(2) The United States shall pay just compensation to the owners 
of any real property taken pursuant to this subsection, determined as 
of the date of taking. The full faith and credit of the United States 
is hereby pledged to the payment of any judgment entered against the 
United States with respect to the taking of such property. Payment 
shall be in the amount of the agreed negotiated value of such real 
property plus interest or the valuation of such real property awarded 
by judgment plus interest. Interest shall accrue from the date of 
taking to the date of payment. Interest shall be compounded quarterly 
and computed at the rate applicable for the period involved, as 
determined by the Secretary of the Treasury on the basis of the current 
average market yield on outstanding marketable obligations of the 
United States of comparable maturities from the date of enactment of 
this subsection to the last day of the month preceding the date on 
which payment is made.
    ``(3) In the absence of a negotiated settlement, or an action by 
the owner, within 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
subsection, the Secretary shall initiate a proceeding, seeking in a 
court of competent jurisdiction a determination of just compensation 
with respect to the taking of such property.''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 40 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 40

    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 with respect to the 
             deductibility of certain home office expenses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 1995

 Mr. Allard (for himself, Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut, Mr. Bachus, Mr. 
Baker of California, Mr. Baker of Louisiana, Mr. Ballenger, Mr. Barton 
  of Texas, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. Bereuter, Mr. Brewster, Mr. 
 Burton of Indiana, Mr. Camp, Mr. Canady, Mr. Collins of Georgia, Mr. 
 Cox, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Dornan, Mr. Forbes, Mr. Gunderson, Mr. Horn, 
Mr. Hunter, Mr. Knollenberg, Mr. Leach, Mr. Lipinski, Mrs. Morella, Mr. 
    Packard, Ms. Pryce, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Royce, Mr. Saxton, Mr. 
Schaefer, Mr. Shays, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Taylor of North Carolina, 
  Mr. Wolf, and Mr. Zimmer) introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 with respect to the 
             deductibility of certain home office expenses.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DEDUCTIBILITY OF CERTAIN HOME OFFICE EXPENSES.

    (a) General Rule.--Subparagraph (A) of section 280A(c)(1) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to certain business use) is 
amended to read as follows:
                    ``(A) as the principal place of business for any 
                trade or business of the taxpayer, or as the sole fixed 
                location of business for any trade or business of the 
                taxpayer who has no other fixed location of business 
                for such trade or business, regardless of (i) the 
                amount of time or type of work the taxpayer performs in 
                such fixed location, or (ii) the proportion of the 
                total income from the business attributable to such 
                location,''
    (b) Storage of Product Samples.--Paragraph (2) of section 280A(c) 
of such Code is amended by striking ``inventory'' and inserting 
``inventory or product samples''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years ending after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```