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

**No. 13**  **- 7491** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. SYLVESTER NORVILLE, a/k/a Dick , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Greenville
. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. ( 4:10

- cr - 00087

- D

- 1; 4:12

- cv - 00076

- D )

Submitted : March 28, 2014 Decided: April 3, 2014

Before KING, D UNCAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Sylvester Norville, Appellant Pro Se. Shailika K. Shah, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Sylvester Norville seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealabili ty. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner s atisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is “ debatable or wrong. ” Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); accord Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slac k , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Norville has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 14

- 00510

- CV

Donald Hendrickson

v. Action Realty
On Appeal from the 92nd District Court of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Cause No. C

- 0102

- 12

- A

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause o n appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant.
We further order this decision certified below for observance. June 18, 2015
The State of 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 3, 2015

No. 04-15-00083-CR

John COLEMAN,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR10029

Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file the brief is GRANTED. Time is 

extended to July 1, 2015.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 3rd day of June, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. JUAN M ANUEL C A STR O,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-50074

D.C . No. 3:15-c r-01793-LAB -1
ORDER

B e fore : REINHAR

DT, KOZINSKI, a

n d C HR ISTEN, C i rc u it Judge s. The m e m orandum

disposition, file d on August 22, 2017, is a m e n de d a s follows: On page 2, line s 15–16, the phra se “ be c a

use the re wa s suffic ie nt e vide nc e of the c ha in of c ustody

without the se doc u m e nts” is de le te d. W ith the fore going a

m e ndm e nt, Appe lla

nt’ s pe tition for pa

n e l re he aring, file d Oc tobe r 5, 2017, is DENIED. The pa n e l vote s to de n y

the pe tition for
re he aring e n ba

nc . The full c ourt ha s be e n a dvise d of the pe tition for re he aring e n ba nc , a nd no judgere que ste d a vote on whe the r to re h e ar the m a tte r e n ba nc . Fe d. R . App. P. 35. Thepe tition for re he aring e n ba nc , file d the sa

m e da te , is DENIED. No future pe titions sha

l l be e nte rta ine d. 

# FIL ED
N OV 01 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS
#### Meyer Sacks, Appellant, v. Henry Friedopfer, Respondent.

Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Woodward, Jenks, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.
177 La. 1062

#### GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION v. FORD.

No. 32415.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 7, 1933.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 3, 1933.

James N. Brittingham, Jr., of New Orleans, for relator.

O’Niell & O’Niell, of New Orleans, for respondent.

OVERTON, Justice.

Leo G. Ford, who is domiciled in the state of Mississippi, signed at his domicile in that state certain guarantees, which are sued upon in this case. These guarantees were delivered to the traveling agent of the General Motors Acceptance Corporation, in Mississippi, which is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of New York.

The General Motors Acceptance Corporation brought suit on the guarantees in the civil district court for the parish of Orleans against Ford, and sued out a writ of attachment. Ford excepted to the jurisdiction of the court on the ground that the cause of action is not connected with business done in this state and did not arise here. The exception was overruled, and supervisory writs were applied for and ordered to issue.

A similar question was before us and was this day decided in the case of Jackson State National Bank, of Jackson, Mississippi v. Merchants’ Bank & Trust Company, of Jackson, Mississippi, 149 So. 539. The only difference worthy of note between this and the cited case is that in the cited case both plaintiff and defendant are foreign corporations, not represented here, whereas in the present case the defendant is a nonresident natural person.

It was decided in the cited case that, under Act No. 220 of 1932, it was a matter of no importance, with reference to the right to sue and attach here, whether or not the cause of action arose out of this state or grew out of business transacted elsewhere, for in either event the courts of this state had jurisdiction. The fact that the defendant is a nonresident natural person does not alter the case. The wording of the act of 1932 is broad enough to include a nonresident natural person as a defendant as well as a foreign corporation, not domiciled or represented here by an agent for the service of process.

The ruling, under review, is affirmed.

O’NIELL, O. J., is recused.
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 24.1

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT, that the undersigned, Mark W. Dowley,
constitutes and appoints Yehoram Uziel and Robert E. Kassel, or either of them,
his true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents, each with full power of
substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, in
any and all capacities, to sign the Form 10-KSB, Annual Report of Soligen
Technologies, Inc., a Wyoming Corporation, for the fiscal year ended March 31,
1998, and any amendments or supplements thereto, and to file this Power of
Attorney and the Form 10-KSB, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in
connection therewith with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
Superintendent of the British Columbia Securities Commission, the American Stock
Exchange and the Vancouver Stock Exchange, granting unto each of said
attorneys-in-fact and agents full power and authority to do and perform each and
every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the
premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in
person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that each of said attorneys-fact and
agents, or his substitutes, may do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

           Dated this     19th     day of June 1998
                       -----------


Signature



/s/ Mark W. Dowley
--------------------------
Mark W. Dowley, Director
No. 72-5903.

#### Dixon *v.*California.

Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.
#### Steven Edwards, Respondent, v Merrill Lynch and Co., Inc., Defendant, and Marriott Corporation, Appellant.

[677 NYS2d 552]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.), entered on or about May 15, 1997, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant Marriott Corporation’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the motion court that triable issues exist as to whether the ice that allegedly caused plaintiff to slip and fall and thereby to sustain injury came from a beverage cart operated by Marriott. Evidence showing that the cart had been within a few feet of the spot at which plaintiff fell some 20 minutes later permits the inference that the ice originated from the cart. We note, however, that Marriott may not be held liable for plaintiff’s injuries unless it is determined that the ice did in fact come from its beverage cart; Marriott is not alleged to have had any control over, or maintenance responsibility for, the premises on which the accident occurred. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rubin, Williams and Andrias, JJ.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, John P. Gorst, Chief Executive Officer of Insynq, Inc. (the "Company"),
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:

     (1)  the Annual Report of Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year
          ended May 31,2002 (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 results of operations
          of the Company.


Dated: September 23, 2002



/s/ John P. Gorst
-----------------
John P. Gorst, Chief Executive Officer
#### THIBODAUX v. FALCON.

No. 2096.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

March 4, 1940.

Moise Thibodeaux, of Baton Rouge, for appellant.

Warren O. Watson, of Baton Rouge, for .appellee.

LeBLANC, Judge.

Plaintiff instituted this suit to recover the sum of $522.35 which he claims is the balance due him by defendant on a bill rendered for services rendered by him as superintendent of construction of certain apartments which the defendant was having erected in the City of Baton Rouge. Issue was joined by the defendant’s answer to the plaintiff’s petition and after trial of the case on the merits, judgment was rendered in the district court against the plaintiff rejecting his demand and dismissing his suit at his costs.

The judgment was rendered in the district court on July 14, 1939 and was read and signed in open court on July 17, 1939. As appears from the extract of the minute entries filed in the record, it was not until Monday, October 4, 1939, that the plaintiff, on oral motion made by his counsel in open court, obtained an order of devolutive appeal returnable to this court on October 24, 1939, upon his furnishing bond in the amount fixed by the Court. A bond was furnished in due time and the appeal was lodged in this court on the return date fixed in the order. Defendant, appellee, moves for a dismissal of the appeal on the ground that it was taken at a term of the district court subsequent to that at which judgment was rendered and signed without citation of appeal.

Appellee has supplied the record with a certificate signed by one of the presiding judges of the district court from which the case emanated, which shows that the terms of that court begin with the first Monday of October of each year and end on the 31st day of July in the year following. It is apparent therefore that the appeal was taken at a term subsequent to that during which the judgment was rendered and signed, and, as it was obtained on oral motion only, and without citation, it is not a valid appeal and the motion to dismiss must prevail. Officer et al. v. American Insurance Company, 182 La. 1054, 162 So. 771; Hornsby v. Texas & New Orleans Railway Company, La.App., 193 So. 377.

It is therefore ordered that the motion herein be sustained and the appeal is hereby dismissed at the costs of the appellant.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 83

To provide for the withholding of contributions to certain organizations that

assist Iraq, Iran, Libya, and Cuba.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. DIAZ-BALART introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Banking and Financial Services

A BILL

To provide for the withholding of contributions to certain

organizations that assist Iraq, Iran, Libya, and Cuba.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. WITHHOLDING OF CONTRIBUTIONS TO CER4 TAIN INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL ORGANIZA5 TIONS.

6 The President shall withhold assessed and voluntary

7 contributions of the United States to any international fi8 nancial institution (including the International Monetary

9 Fund, the World Bank, and the International Develop-
2

HR 83 IH

1 ment Bank) that furnishes any assistance of any kind to

2 Iraq, Iran, Libya, or Cuba.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 19, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 48368]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19160]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Natural Resources Conservation Service


Notice of a Finding of No Significant Impact--Little Choconut 
Creek Watershed, Broome County, NY

ACTION: Notice of a Finding of No Significant Impact--Little Choconut 
Creek Watershed, Broome County, New York.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations 
(40 CFR Part 1500); and the Natural Resources Conservation Service 
Regulations (7 CFR Part 650); the Natural Resources Conservation 
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, gives notice that an 
environmental impact statement is not being prepared for the Little 
Choconut Creek Flood Control Dam Site 2 rehabilitation project, Broome 
County, New York.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis DeWeese, Acting State 
Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 441 S. Salina 
St., Suite 354, Syracuse, NY 13202; telephone: (315) 477-6504.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The environmental assessment of this 
federally assisted action indicates that the project will not cause 
significant local, regional, or national impacts on the environment. As 
a result of these findings, Dennis DeWeese, Acting State 
Conservationist, has determined that the preparation and review of an 
environmental impact statement is not needed for this project.
    The project purpose is to rehabilitate dam site 2 in order to 
extend the useful life of the structure and meet current dam safety 
criteria. The planned works of improvement include sediment removal 
from behind the dam and increasing the height of the auxiliary 
spillway.
    The Notice of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has been 
forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency and to various 
Federal, State, and local agencies and interested parties. A limited 
number of copies of the FONSI are available to fill single copy 
requests at the above address. Basic data developed during the 
environmental assessment are on file and may be reviewed by contacting 
Dennis DeWeese, Acting State Conservationist, New York.
    No administrative action on implementation of the proposal will be 
taken until 30 days after the date of this publication in the Federal 
Register.

(This activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance under NO. 10.904, Watershed Protection and Flood 
Prevention, and is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 
12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and 
local officials.)


    Dated: August 4, 2008.
Dennis DeWeese,
Acting State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 
Syracuse, NY.
[FR Doc. E8-19160 Filed 8-18-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-16-P
June 5, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

KENNETH LEE DOUDS, Appellant

NO. 14-12-00642-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

We order that this Court’s former judgment of October 15, 2013 is vacated. We 

further order this Court’s opinions of October 15, 2013 withdrawn. 

This cause, an appeal from the trial court’s order denying appellant’s “Motion to 

Suppress Blood Test” and “Motion to Suppress Test, Videotape, Statements,” signed 

May 4, 2011, was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. The record 

reveals error in the portion of the order denying appellant’s “Motion to Suppress Blood 

Test.” This Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED and the case is 

REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with the Court’s opinion.

We order THE STATE OF TEXAS to pay all costs incurred in this appeal. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### DE SOTO-HILTON HOTEL CO., Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. J. Sully MARTEL et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 16120.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

June 24, 1935.

H. M. Ansley, of New Orleans, for appellant.

S. C. Hartel and J. C. Sporl, both of New Orleans, for appellee.

WESTERFIELD, Judge.

This is a suit against the maker and in-dorser of a promissory note in the sum of $100.

There was judgment below as prayed for, and the indorser alone has appealed.

The defense as set forth in the answer consists in the contention that the defendant Henry C. Whiteman is the surety and entitled to notice of dishonor which was not given, and that therefore he is released from all obligation on the note.

On the trial of the case below the defendant Martel, who failed to answer, made no appearance, and no proof of any kind was offered in behalf of the defendant Whiteman.

The note, which was offered in evidence, contains the following stipulation:

“The makers, endorsers, guarantors and sureties hereby severally waive presentment for payment, demand protest and notice of protest and non-payment, and also all pleas of division and discussion. This note may be extended without notice and without affecting the liabilities of any of the parties hereto.”

It is obvious that the judgment appealed from must be affirmed.

In this court appellee has asked for 10 per cent, damages for frivolous appeal under article 907 of the Code of Practice.

It is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment appealed from be, and it is, amended, by increasing the amount thereof by 10 per cent., and, as thus amended, it is affirmed.

Amended and affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,
Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement Megan K. Cavanagh,
Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

October 28, 2020

t1021 

# Order

Clerk 

### October 28, 2020

160668

- 9

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 160668

- 9 COA: 342039; 342043 Macomb CC: 2016

- 000309

- FH JAMES CURTIS BECK, 2017

- 001376

- FC Defendant

- Appellant. _____________________________________/

By order of June 17, 2020, the prosecuting atto rney was directed to answer the application for leave to appeal the October 17, 2019 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the answer having been received, the application for leave to appeal is again

considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on the application. MCR 7.305(H)(1).

The appellant shall file a supplemental brief within 42 days of the date of this order addressing: (1) whether the defendant’s retrial in Docket No. 2016

- 000309

- FH was barred by

the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the federal or state constitutions, US Const, Am V; Const 1963, art 1, § 15; (2) if so, whether vacating his convictions in that case would also warrant a new trial, resentencing, or any other remedy in the jointly tried case, Docket No . 2017

- 001376

- FC; and (3) whether the trial court improperly imposed a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years for an act

of first

- degree criminal sexual conduct (Count II) that was not charged as carrying such a

minimum. See Alleyne v United States , 570 US 99, 109

- 111 (2013); Apprendi v New Jersey , 530 US 466, 476, 478

- 479 (2000). In addition to the brief, the appellant shall electronically file an appendix conforming to MCR 7.312(D)(2). In the brief, citations to the record must provide the

appen dix page numbers as required by MCR 7.312(B)(1). The appellee shall file a supplemental brief within 21 days of being served with the appellant’s brief. The appellee shall also electronically file an appendix, or in the alternative, stipulate to the use of the appendix filed by the appellant. A reply, if any, must be filed by the appellant within 14 days of being served with the appellee’s brief. The parties should not submit mere restatements of their application papers.

The Criminal Defense Attorn eys of Michigan and the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file

briefs a micus curiae.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


The Board of Directors
Sonic Solutions

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-66187) on Form S-8 of Sonic Solutions of our report dated April 28, 2000,
except as to note 11 which is as of May 4, 2000, relating to the balance sheets
of Sonic Solutions as of March 31, 2000 and 1999, and the related statements of
operations, shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended March 31, 2000, and the related financial statement
schedule, which report appears or is incorporated by reference in the March 31,
2000, annual report on Form 10-K of Sonic Solutions.






/S/ KPMG LLP
San Francisco, California
June 26, 2000
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 24
- 0378 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JOSHUA WILLIAM MEYERS STARKS,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including November 4 , 202 4 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

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

September 24 2024

09/24/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0378