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

_____________________

No. 95-60329 Summary Calendar

_____________________
JAKE AYERS, JR., Private Plaintiffs; BENNIE G. THOMPSON, United States Congressman, Second Congressional District Mississippi,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

GOVERNOR KIRK FORDICE, Defendants/Senior Colleges; STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, Defendants,

Defendants-Appellees

and

HINDS JUNIOR COLLEGE, Board of Trustees; UTICA JUNIOR COLLEGE, Board of Trustees; MISSISSIPPI DELTA JUNIOR

COLLEGE; COAHOMA JUNIOR COLLEGE,

Defendants,

versus

LOUIS ARMSTRONG,

Movant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

(75-CV-9)

_________________________________________________________________ September 25, 1996 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.* Pur suant 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

- 2 - PER CURIAM: *

The appellants, private plaintiffs in a two-decades old action

concerning desegregation of Mississippi universities, appeal the

district court’s May 8, 1995, denial of their request for an

injunction prohibiting increases in tuition charged by Mississippi

universities to nonresident students. (The appeal from the ruling

on the merits, Ayers v. Fordi ce , 879 F. Supp. 1419 (N.D. Miss.

1995), is pending in a separate appeal, No. 95-60431.)

The appe llants contend that the district court erred by

conducting the hearing telephonically, ruling that nonresident

tuition has no bearing on admissions standards, and failing to

order additional remedial measures that were necessary to fully

cure the violation. (Numerous issues are raised in the appellants’

brief, such as classification of nonresident students, student

loans, and min imum entrance requirements, that are outside the

order in issue. We lack jurisdiction to consider those issues, and

therefore do not address them.)

The district court held that the nonresident tuition increase

d id not violate its rulings delaying implementation of n e w

admissions standards; that the appellants’ individual

constitutional rights are not implicated, because black nonresident- 3 -

students are not members of the plaintiff class; that the

appellants improp erly sought to assert alleged rights of

universities; and that present State policies associated w i th

nonresident tuition are not vestiges or remnants of de jure

segregation.

Essentially for the reasons stated by the district court, the

request for injunctive relief is meritless . The contention

concerning the telephonic hearing is likewise meritless.

Accordingly, the district court did not abus e its discretion by

denying the requested relief. Therefore, the denial of injunctive

relief is

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7824

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

BERNARD HUDSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief

District Judge. (CR-91-363-A, CA-95-338-AM)

Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 29, 1996

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George Lynde Richardson, Baileys Crossroads, Virginia, for Appellant. Nanette Louise Davis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,

Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion alleging that he was denied the

right to appeal his conviction and sentence. We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. We note that neither the district court nor this court has

jurisdiction to extend the appeal period beyond the time limits set

forth in Fed. R. App. R. 4(b), and, in any event, Appellant waived

his right to appeal his conviction and sentence in his plea agreement. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the

district court. United States v. Hudson, Nos. CR-91-363-A; CA-95-

338-AM (E.D. Va. Nov. 1, 1995). 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 32.2


    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 GCI, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John M. Lowber, Chief
Financial 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:

    (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:  May 5, 2005
                                       /s/
                                       John M. Lowber
                                       Chief Financial Officer
                                       GCI, Inc.


                                       1
18538, 18539.

#### Benefield *v.*Luther, Justice of the Peace (two cases).

Almand, Justice.

In each of the instant cases, the bill of exceptions was certified by the trial judge on February 8, 1954,-.and the unverified certificate of counsel for the plaintiff in error was, that “I have this day served counsel for the defendant in error with a true copy of the foregoing bill of exceptions.” In case No. 18538 the certificate is undated, and in case No. 18539 the certificate bears date of February 6, 1954. *Held:*

1. “Within 10 days after the bill of exceptions shall be signed and certified, the party plaintiff therein shall serve a copy thereof upon the opposite party or his attorney . . . with a return of such service (or acknowledgment of service) indorsed upon or annexed to such bill of exceptions. . . Where there is no acknowledgment or waiver of service, the return of such service may be either in the form of an affidavit or by an unverified certification of one of counsel for plaintiff in error showing service, indorsed upon or annexed to the bill of exceptions or cross-bill.” Code § 6-911, as amended by Ga. L. 1953, Nov.-Dee. Sess., pp. 455-456.

2. “The service of the bill of exceptions must affirmatively appear to have been made after the certificate of the presiding judge was attached thereto.” *Bush*v. *Keaton,*65 *Ga.*296 (1); *Riley*v. *Echols,*99 *Ga.*321 (25 S. E. 649); *Churchill*v. *Barclay,*102 *Ga.*555 (27 S. E. 680); *Seliger*v. *Coker,*105 *Ga.*512 (2) (31 S. E. 185); *Consolidated Naval Stores Co.*v. *McPhatter,*147 *Ga.*797 (95 S. E. 686); *Duke*v. *Sims,*70 *Ga. App.*318 (28 S. E. 2d 174).

*545Argued April 12, 1954

Decided April 14, 1954.

*Linus L. Zukas,*for plaintiff in error.

*Brannon & Brannon, Telford, Wayne & Smith,*contra.

3. Neither service of the bill of exceptions as required by law, nor any waiver or acknowledgment thereof, being shown, this court is without jurisdiction of the writs of error, and they must be dismissed. *Izlar*v. *Central of Ga. Ry. Co.,*162 *Ga.*558 (134 S. E. 315); *Boyd*v. *Boyd,*209 *Ga.*455 (74 S. E. 2d 6).

*Writs of error dismissed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### Amos Rathbun, Respondent, v. The Morning Telegraph Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concurred, except Kruse, J., who dissented.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane lunani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T AR T HU RMAR C E L O, P e titio n e r- A p p e llan t, v. M ATTHEW CATE , R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 08- 56609 D. C . No . 2 : 0 8 - c v - 0 1 3 2 8 - C AS ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea lfr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia C hr i s t i naA . S ny de r , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r21, 2010 ** B e f o r e : T A S H I M A , B E R Z O N , an dT A L L M A N , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . C alifo rn ia state p riso n erA rth u r M ar ce lo ap p ea ls fr o m th e d istrict co u rt’s j udgm e ntdi s m i s s i ng hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2254 habe a s pe t i t i on c ha l l e ngi ng the B oar d of P ri so n T erm s’ s 2 0 0 4 an d2 0 0 5 d eci si o n s d en yi n g p aro l e. W e d i sm i ss. 

# FI LED NO V 28 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 56609 2 T he r e c or d r e f

l e c t s tha tM ar c e l o r e c e i ve d ane w par ol e he ar i ng i n 2010 and h as b een rel easedo n p aro l e. T h u s, th ere i s n o i n j u ry th atcan b e red ressedb y a f av o r ab le d e c is io n , an dth e c a s e is m o o t. See B u rn et t v. L a m p ert , 432 F . 3d 996, 9 9 9 - 1 0 0 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ; s e e al s o Munozv . R ow land , 104 F . 3d 1096, 1097- 98 ( 9th C i r . 1997) ( “ B e c aus e M unoz ha s be e n r e l e a s e d . . . , w e c an no l onge rpr ovi de h im th e p r im aryr e lie f

s o u g h t in h is h ab e a s c o rp u s p e titio n ” ) . T h e s ta te ’s m o tio n f

o rju d ic ia l n o tic e is g r an te d . W i l l i am C h arl es M el ch er’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw as M arcel o ’ s co u n sel i s al so g r an te d . D I S M I S S E D .
##### 



Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Michael P. Howard, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and
Accounting Officer), certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Webco Industries,
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)
    
    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; andc)
    
    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 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 auditors and the audit committee of
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; andb)
    
    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: October 29, 2004 /s/ Michael P. Howard  Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 1662** 

TORNELLO FONTAINE PIERCE EL BEY , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. ROY COOPER; PAT MCCRORY; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; JAMES ALLEN JOINES; SHERIFF WILLIAM T. SCHATZMAN; BJ BARNS, a/k/a Eschol Edward Barnes, Jr.; NANCY VAUGHAN , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte
. Frank D. Whitney , Chief District Judge. ( 3:15

- cv - 00539

- FDW

- DCK )

Submitted : October 18, 2016 Decided: October 20, 2016

Before WILKINSON , KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remand ed by un published per curiam opinion
. Tornello Fontaine Pierce El Bey , Appellant Pro Se. Grady L. Balentine, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General , Raleigh, North Carolina ; James R. Morgan, Jr. , WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC , Winston

- Salem, North Carolina ; Lonnie Glenn Albright, III , FORSYTH COUNTY SHERIFF ’ S OFFICE , James Demarest Secor, III , James Anthony Clar k, Associate General Counsel, Polly D. Sizemore, CITY OF GREENSBORO LEGAL DEPARTMENT , Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Tornello Fontaine Pierce El Bey seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his complaint without prejudice. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 56 (1949). We conclude that the order Pierce El Bey seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y,
Inc. , 807 F.3d 619, 623

- 24, 629

- 30 (4th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and remand to the district court with instructions to allow Pierce El Bey to file an amended complaint. We dispense with oral argument because the fact s and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED AND REMANDED
EXHIBIT 15.  LETTER RE UNAUDITED INTERIM FINANCIAL INFORMATION



To the Board of Directors and Stockholders
  of Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc.
Santa Rosa, California

We have reviewed, in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, the unaudited interim financial
information of Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc. and subsidiaries for the
periods ended April 30, 1997 and 1996 as indicated in our report (which
report makes reference to the report of other accountants), dated May 21,
1997.  Because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that
information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 1997, is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statements No. 33-41050,
No. 33-26271, No. 33-12276, No. 33-48808, No. 33-65132, and No. 33-60891 on
Forms S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-61177 and No. 33-65319 on
Form S-3.

We are also aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c)
under the Securities Act, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that
Act.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

F:\DOC\0209\02094101.DOC, 6/12/97, 3:55 PM


San Jose, California
June 13, 1997
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Form 10-QSB
for the Quarterly Period Ended September 30, 1999, and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          9-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                         Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                           Sep-30-1999
<CASH>                                      49,732
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                            1,342,991
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                              2,757,277
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         4,210,619
<PP&E>                                     932,524
<DEPRECIATION>                             896,938
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           5,188,655
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    4,846,475
<BONDS>                                  1,782,450
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                 1,213,407
<OTHER-SE>                              (2,653,677)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             5,188,655
<SALES>                                 10,730,563
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        10,730,563
<CGS>                                    9,220,009
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           10,750,265
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         182,210
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (19,701)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (19,701)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                               (19,701)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (0.01)



</TABLE>
<TABLE>

                                                                                                                    EXHIBIT 12

                                                                               PACIFIC BELL
                                                             COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                                                             Dollars in Millions


<CAPTION>
                                                   THREE MONTHS
                                                  ENDED MARCH 31,                      YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                -------------------   --------------------------------------------------------
                                                   1999       1998       1998       1997       1996        1995         1994
                                                -------------------   --------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                             <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>         <C>         <C>
Income Before Income Taxes, Extraordinary
   Loss and Cumulative Effect of Accounting    
   Changes                                      $    513   $   413    $ 1,871    $     34   $  1,568    $  1,161    $   1,276
     Add:Interest Expense                            103       106        426         460        379         420          437
         1/3 Rental Expense                            9         9         39          41         47          29           22
                                                ---------  --------   ---------  ---------  ---------   ---------   ----------
     Adjusted Earnings                          $    625   $   528    $ 2,336    $    535   $  1,994    $  1,610    $   1,735
                                                =========  ========   =========  =========  =========   =========   ==========

Total Interest Charges                          $    112   $   115    $   461    $    497   $    412    $    420    $     437
1/3 Rental Expense                                     9         9         39          41         47          29           22
                                                ---------  --------   ---------  ---------  ---------   ---------   ----------
     Adjusted Fixed Charges                     $    121   $   124    $   500    $    538   $    459    $    449    $     459
                                                =========  ========   =========  =========  =========   =========   ==========

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                  5.17      4.26       4.67        0.99*      4.34        3.59         3.78

<FN>
*  As defined within the computation of earnings to fixed charges,  earnings are
   $3 less than fixed charges for 1997. See Management's Discussion and Analysis
   of Results of  Operations  in Pacific  Bell's 1997 Annual Report on Form 10-K
   for a  discussion  of  merger-related  and other  unusual  items that reduced
   earnings for 1997.
</FN>
</TABLE>