alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7694

DWAYNE E. SYDNOR, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. JOHN R. KUPLINSKI, Jail Administrator; KAVEH OFOGH, Doctor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:07-cv-00697) Submitted: February 21, 2008 Decided: February 27, 2008 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dwayne E. Sydnor, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Dwayne E. Sydnor seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his civil rights complaint. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr. , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court’s order was entered on the docket on August 3, 2007. The notice of appeal was filed on November 4, 2007. *Because Sydnor failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We deny Sydnor’s motion for seizure of medical records. 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
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
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 October 26, 2009

s1019 

# Order

October 26, 2009

139406

TRUDY JO SIMCOX, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139406 COA: 284287 Genesee CC: 07-277268-DM BLAIR RICHARD SIMCOX, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 23, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
AMENDMENT TO

                                             ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION

                                                        OF

                                             DEVELOPMENT BANCORP, LTD.



         1.       The name of the Corporation is Development Bancorp, Ltd.

         2. The  following  amendment  to the Articles of  Incorporation  of the
Corporation  was adopted by the Board of  Directors on November 21, 1997 without
shareholder action pursuant to Section 23B.10.020.(5) of the Washington Business
Corporation Act.

         3.       Article I of the Articles of Incorporation of the Corporation
 is hereby amended in
its entirety to read as follows:

                  The name of this corporation shall be "Imatel Holdings, Inc."

         Executed this 24th day of November, 1997.




                                                              Dempsey K. Mork
                                                            Secretary/Treasurer




<PAGE>
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 39100

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

THOMAS MAURICE MASSEY ,

Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 361

Filed: February 10, 2012

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS I S AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fo urth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Thomas F. Neville , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fourteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years , for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver

, affirmed

.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________
Before LANSING, Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Thomas Maurice Massey pled guilty to an amended charge of possession of a controlled

substance with intent to deliver . I.C. § 37

- 2732(a)

. In exchange for his guilty plea, the stat e agreed not to pursue an allegation that Massey was a persistent violator. The district court

sentenced Massey to a unified term of fourteen years, with a m inimum period of confinement of

five years

. Massey appeals.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial c ourt's discretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

-2 15 (Ct . App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. Stat e v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Massey ’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
ex4_2.htm


EXHIBIT 4.2


 


 


 



Easement Agreement dated June 10, 2013 between Sociedad Contractual Minera Eton Chile 


(Exeter Resource Corporation) and the Chilean Government.


 









The following constitutes a summary of the material terms for the above noted agreement, as derived from the executed Spanish version attached.


 



	
–

	
Easement Agreement is for the surface rights, excluding certain areas owned by indigenous communities,  that correspond to surfaces that may be required for the development of Exeter Resource Corporation’s (the “Company”) Caspiche property;







 



	


–



	
The easement is valid for 25 years;







 



	


–



	
To maintain the easement the Company is required to pay an upfront fee of US$1.5 million and 10 further annual payments of approximately US$600,000.
#### Henrietta Adler, Respondent, v. The Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, on the authority of *Burgdorf*v. *Brooklyn, Queens County & Suburban R. R. Co. (ante,*p. 253), decided herewith. Hirschberg, P. J., Woodward, Jenks, Gaynor and Miller, JJ., concurred.
#### Hyman MUSLOW, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. W. A. WARMSLEY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 4824.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Nov. 2, 1934.

Irion & Switzer and Henry F. Turner, all of Shreveport, for appellant.

Wallace & Hardeman, of Benton, for ap-pellee.

DREW, Judge.

This case was consolidated for trial with case No. 4822, entitled John M. Sentell v. W. A. Warmsley, 157 So. 152, this day decided by this court. The only differences in the pleadings are that the plaintiff is different, the description of the land owned by plaintiff is different, and the number of trees cut and the number of ties manufactured is different. In all other respects the petition and answer are the same.

This case was tried upon the same evidence as ease No. 4822, and the lower court awarded judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $18.30, finding that 366 cross-ties were manufactured, from timber on plaintiff’s land, by Buddy Young, who sold them to the defendant. The lower court allowed the stumpage value of 5 cents per tie.

The issues and evidence being the same as in case No. 4822, and the lower court having ■correctly determined the number of ties manufactured from timber on plaintiff’s land, it is therefore decreed, for the reasons assigned in ■ case No. 4822, this day decided by us, that the judgment .of the lower court is affirmed, with costs.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7359
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TROY NOLAN BAZILIO, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CR-93-41-F, CA-97-32-5-F) Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: May 26, 1998 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Troy Nolan Bazilio, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Skiver, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court modified the reasoning of its prior order, it upheld the dismissal of Appellant's § 2255 motion. 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) and granting in part his motion for reconsideration. * We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find noreversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Bazilio, Nos. CR-93-41-F; CA-97-32-5-F (E.D.N.C. June 3 & Aug. 19, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS
ANTHO NY B OSCH, Ap pe lla nt, v. AL I ETTE B OSCH, Appellee . § § § § § § No . 0 8- 08 -0 01 84 -C V

Appea l from the 388th J udicial District Court of El Pa so County , T e xas (TC# 2007CM2817)

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION Pending be fore the Court is Appellee A liette Bosc h’s motion to dis miss thi s appea l for la c k o f j ur isd ic tio n. F ind ingthat a fi na l, a pp e a la ble or de r h a s n ot b e e n e nte re d b y the tr ia l c ourt , we wi ll d ism iss the a

pp e a l. Final judgment was e ntere d in this case by the trial cour

t on Febr uary 19, 2008. Subsequently , howeve r, the trial c ourt g rante d Mr. B osch’s motion for ne w trial on issues of conser vatorship, support, and a

rre ara g es. The notice of appe al was f iled followingentry

of the tr ia l c ourt ’s or de r gra

nti nga ne w tri a l. Appellate c ourts g ener ally have jur isdiction over final judg ments, and such inter locutory order s as the L eg islature dee ms appea lable by statute. SeeT EX .C IV .P R AC .&R EM .C ODE ANN . § 5 1. 01 2 a

nd § 5 1. 01 4 ( Ve rn on

20 08 ); Ru iz v . R uiz , 9 46 S.W. 2d 12 3, 12 4 ( Te x.Ap p. -- El Pa so 19 97 , n o p e t.) . B e c a

us e iss ue s o f c on se rv ator sh ip, su pp or t, a nd arr e ara g e re ma in p e nd ingdu e to the trial cour

t’s decision to g rant Mr. B osch’s motion for ne w trial, the F ebrua ry 19, 2008 judgme nt is not final and appea lable. The ref ore, A ppellee’ s motion t o dismiss the appe al for-2-

lack of jurisdiction is gra

nted, and the a

ppeal is dismissed. Also pendingbefor e the Court ar e Appe llant’s motions t o supplement the re porter’ s rec ord and to e x tend the time to file an a ppellant’s brie f. Given the dispositi on of Appe llee’s mot ion to d ism iss the a

pp e a l, w e de ny

the se re ma ini ngmot ion s a s mo ot.
November

6, 2008 DAVID WEL L I NGTONCHEW, C hief Just ice B e f o r e C h e w , C . J. , M c C l ur e , a n d C ar r , JJ. McClure, J., Not P articipating
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
consolidated  balance  sheet and the  consolidated  statement of income filed as
part of the report on Form 10K-SB and is  qualified in its entirety by reference
to such report on Form 10K-SB.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>     0000915127                    
<NAME>               PHC, Inc.         
<MULTIPLIER>                                      1
<CURRENCY>                                        US
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 JUN-30-1996       
           
<PERIOD-START>                                    JUL-1-1995  
<PERIOD-END>                                      JUN-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                   1.000
<CASH>                                            293,515     
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     10,213,153
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1,492,983
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  10,001,286
<PP&E>                                            9,347,269
<DEPRECIATION>                                    1,463,206
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    20,817,217
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             5,129,897
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0     
<COMMON>                                          33,056
<OTHER-SE>                                        6,384,133
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      20,817,217
<SALES>                                           0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  21,802,758
<CGS>                                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     21,845,592
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  991,797
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  1,894,087
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                863,484
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (796,906)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      206,546
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (585,315)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (585,315)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.21)
        



</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

July 24, 2012

p0716

Order 

July 24, 2012

144974

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 144974

COA: 300508

Wayne CC: 09-031216-FC

JONESAFER LAMAR BLANCH, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 13, 2012 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

WESLEY ANDREW FOX, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-1756

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed August 23, 2019. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas 

County; Frank Quesada, Judge.

Rachael E. Reese of O'Brien Hatfield, 

P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Blain A. Goff, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

KELLY, SLEET, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

VERNA DOREEN SCOTT, by and through WENTWORTH A. INCE,

Attorney-in-Fact,

Appellant,

v.

TAMARAC REHABILITATION & HEALTH CENTER, INC., HBA 

MANAGEMENT, INC., MILLENNIUM HEALTH SYSTEMS, LLC, and

NICOLA CHANDLER,

Appellees.

No. 4D21-3596

[June 23, 2022]

Appeal of a non-final order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth

Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Carol Lisa Phillips, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

CACE19-025495.

Lisa M. Tanaka of Wilkes & Associates, P.A., Tampa, for appellant.

Adam G. Rabinowitz and Yale I. Markus of Moore Rabinowitz Law, 

Plantation, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GERBER, FORST and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          10,510
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   29,308
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         901,249
<DEPRECIATION>                               (214,766)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 970,362
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           231
<OTHER-SE>                                     132,739
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   970,362
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               185,367
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  141,196
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   979
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              44,044
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 39,252
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (3,940)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    39,252
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.17
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

DSP GROUP, INC.

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the annual report of DSP Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Dror Levy, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United
States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Date: March 16, 2007



/s/ Dror LevyDror Levy Chief Financial
Officer
#### George B. Ritchie, Appellant, v. Robert Kahn, Defendant, Impleaded with Charles L. Birkhahn, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion.
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ JOE L. DAWSON, CONRAD C. COX, MARY R. COX, Trustees of the Conrad C. Cox Trust No. 1 and the Mary R. Cox Trust No. 1 , LLOYD E. EDGETT, G&M PROPERTIES, LP, SHAWN GUINN, ALAN WOODSIDE, SHERRY WOODSIDE, Trustees of the Shirley Kats Revocable Trust , DEREK KATS, Trustee of the Derek Kats Revocable Trust , JOHN W. MATHES, JR., executor of the Est ate of Rosemary L. Mathes , DUANE R. MCEWEN, DARLENE MCEWEN, CAROL K. ROSS, KAY L. LEE, Trustees of the Carol K. Ross Trust No. 1 , LISA J. SONSTHAGEN, executor of the Estate of Linda J. Tomasch , JOHN E. BREMER, DAVID G. BREMER, IRIS L. SMITH, CAROL CAMPBELL , Trustees of the

Larry L. Smith and Iris L. Smith Revocable Living Trust Dated 7/17/07 , JASON DIAL, TRAVIS DIAL, M.

LEE JUENEMANN, ANGELA JUENEMANN, Trustees of the M. Lee Juenemann Living Trust and Angela Juenemann Living Trust , Plaintiffs

- Appellants

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant

- Cross

- Appellant

______________________

2023

- 1923, 2023

- 1927 , 2023

- 1971

______________________ Case: 23-1923 Document: 25 Page: 1 Filed: 08/17/2023DAWSON v. US 2

Appeals from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:15

- cv

- 01268

- AOB, Judge Armando O. Bonilla.

______________________
ON MOTION

______________________
O R D E R
Upon consideration of the parties’ unopposed motion s to voluntarily dismiss their respective above

- captioned appeals

, pursuant to Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the parties’ agreement as to the allocation of costs

, I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1) The motion s are granted. The appeals are dismissed

. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

August 17 , 2023 Date F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Jarrett B. Perlow Jarrett B. Perlow Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: August 17, 2023 Case: 23-1923 Document: 25 Page: 2 Filed: 08/17/2023