alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6652

DEMBRY V. SHABAZZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DAVID GARRAGHTY, Chief Warden; MARIE MILLARD, Assistant of Programs, Defendants - Appellees, and ANDREW OLIVER, Chaplain, Defendant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-598-2) Submitted: September 30, 1999 Decided: October 6, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dembry V. Shabazz, Appellant Pro Se. Rick Randall Linker, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Dembry V. Shabazz appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Shabazz v. Garraghty , No. CA-97-598-2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 31, 1999). 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



Statement of Chief Financial Officer



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Pacific Enterprises (the "Company") certifies that:



(i)

the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the "Quarterly Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(ii)

the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







May 2, 2008



/S/  Dennis V. ArriolaDennis V. ArriolaChief Financial Officer
#### C. Gary ROGERS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. S. Morgan SLAUGHTER, as Clerk of the Municipal Court of the City of Jacksonville, Florida, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 71-2202

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 21, 1972.

James C. Rinaman, Jr., Gen. Counsel, David U. Tumin, C. E. Nilson, Jacksonville, Fla., for defendants-appellants.

Russell H. Showalter, Jr., Duval County Legal Aid Assn., Jack G. Hand, Jr., Jacksonville, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, and INGRAHAM and RONEY, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5th Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5th Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM;

This case concerns that portion of a federal district court order requiring that all references to a conviction which was overturned on constitutional grounds be struck from the city’s official records. We conclude the order was overbroad.

Appellee Rogers, a Duval County public school teacher, accidentally fired a *1085pistol he had brought to school, was subsequently convicted in Jacksonville Municipal Court of “discharging a firearm,” elected to pay a $251.00 fine rather than serve fifty days in jail, and soon after tendered his resignation to the School Board.

Rogers sought relief from this conviction in the United States District Court on the ground that he had not been advised of his right to counsel. The Court declared the conviction unconstitutional, and ordered that appellants strike and expunge from both the School Board records and the municipality’s records any reference to his arrest, trial, or conviction.

Appellants dispute neither appellee’s standing nor the lower court’s conclusion that the conviction was unconstitutional. They object only to that portion of the order requiring the alteration of public records.

We pretermit, therefore, any consideration of the application of Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25, 92 S.Ct. 2006, 32 L.Ed.2d 530 (1972), to this case in which only a fine was assessed and assume the correctness of the District Court’s determination that Rogers’ conviction should be set aside.

The District Court, nevertheless, went too far in ordering the expunction of the official public records. This remedy gave the defendant more relief than if he had been acquitted.

Carrying and discharging a concealed weapon does constitute a crime in Jacksonville, and the Court’s privilege to expunge matters of public record is one of exceedingly narrow scope. *See, e. g.,*Herschel v. Dyra, 365 F.2d 17 (7th Cir. 1966); Severson v. Duff, 322 F. Supp. 4 (M.D.Fla.1970); Parducci v. Rutland, 316 F.Supp. 352 (M.D.Ala. 1970). Public policy requires here that the retention of records of the arrest and of the subsequent proceedings be left to the discretion of the appropriate authorities. The judicial editing of history is likely to produce a greater harm than that sought to be corrected.

We vacate the order of the District Court and remand for entry of an order which omits those portions of the original order relating to the expunction of the public records.

Vacated and remanded.
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 15

May 14, 2002



Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Commissioners:

We are aware that our report dated April 19, 2002 on our review of interim
financial information of Phelps Dodge Corporation (the "Corporation") for the
period ended March 31, 2002 and included in the Corporation's quarterly report
on Form 10-Q for the quarter then ended is incorporated by reference in its
Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-67606), Registration Statement and
Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-67606, 333-43890, 33-44380
and 333-36415), Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-26442, 33-6141,
33-26443, 33-29144, 33-19012, 2-67317, 33-34363, 33-34362, 33-62648, 333-42231,
and 333-52175) and Post-Effective Amendment No. 4 on Form S-8 to the
Registration Statement on Form S-4 (No. 333-86061).

Very truly yours,


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
#### Nick DRAGOVICH, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph M. BUICE, a/k/a ModChipUSA, a/k/a A & M Enterprises; Andre Walliman, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 02-1309.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 14, 2002.

Decided Nov. 15, 2002.

Joseph M. Buice, Andre Walliman, Appellants Pro Se. Douglas Wayne Kenyon, Keri C. Prince, Laurie J. Bremer, Hunton & Williams, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAM D. WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Joseph M. Buice and Andre Walliman appeal the district court’s order entering default judgment against them in this copyright infringement and breach of contract action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Dragovich v. Buice,*No. CA-00^418 (E.D.N.C. June 7, 2000). Additionally, we deny the Appellants’ motions for a stay of discovery in Dragovich’s collection proceeding in the Eastern District of Virginia and to expedite consideration of the motion. 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.*
#### Frank L. Young and Caroline D. Seamans, as Executors, etc., of Mary D. Jones, Deceased, and Said Frank L. Young, as Trustee under the Last Will and Testament of Mary D. Jones, Deceased, and Said Caroline D. Seamans, Individually, Respondents, v. William M. Dubois, Appellant, Impleaded with Fannie M. Fox and Others, Respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to plaintiffs, respondents, against the appellant personally. No opinion. Settle order on notice.
**CERTIFICATION
      OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**




**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 Annual Report of Arotech Corporation (the “Company”) on Form
      10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission (the “Report”), I, Thomas J. Paup, Vice President - Finance and Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that
      the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report
      fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
      of operations of the Company.









By:  /s/
      Thomas J. Paup


Thomas
      J.
      Paup,


Vice
      President - Finance and CFO


(Chief
      Financal Officer)





Date:
      March 31, 2006
#### Ellen Jarvis Hotaling, Plaintiff, v. Emma A. Frith and Others, Defendants, Impleaded with Anna J. Frith, as Administratrix, etc., of Francis E. Frith, Deceased, Appellant. Long Island Loan & Trust Company, as Receiver, etc., Respondent.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Hirschberg, P. J., Woodward, Jenks, Gaynor and Miller, JJ., concurred.
Exhibit (99)
                                                                    -----------

                            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 Owens Corning (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the  period  ended  June  30,  2002 as filed  with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Michael H. Thaman,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section
1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of my knowledge:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  Information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all  material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


/s/ Michael H. Thaman


Michael H. Thaman
Chief Financial Officer
August 12, 2002
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 657 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 238
104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 657

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 14, 1995

            Received; read twice and placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the 
 construction of three hydroelectric projects in the State of Arkansas.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINES.

    Notwithstanding the time limitations of section 13 of the Federal 
Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 
upon the request of the licensee for FERC Project No. 4204, 4660, and 
4659 (and after reasonable notice), is authorized, in accordance with 
the good faith, due diligence, and public interest requirements of such 
section 13 and the Commission's procedures under such section, to 
extend the time required for commencement of construction for the 
project for up to a maximum of 3 consecutive 2-year periods. This 
section shall take effect for the project upon the expiration of the 
extension (issued by the Commission under such section 13) of the 
period required for commencement of construction of such project.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 13, 1995.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.
                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 238

104th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 657

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the 
 construction of three hydroelectric projects in the State of Arkansas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           November 14, 1995

            Received; read twice and placed on the calendar
```
**Exhibit
      99.2**





CERTIFICATE
          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 Annual Report (the “Report”) on the Form 10-KSB/A of
          Mortlock Ventures Inc. (the “Company”) for the period from September 19, 2006
          (date of inception) to June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and
          Exchange
          Commission on the date hereof, I, Michael Laidlaw, Chief Executive Officer,
          President and Director, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
          adopted
          pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
          best of
          my knowledge and belief:
 
 1.
                The
                    Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a)
                    or 15 (d) of
                    the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
                    and
 
 2.
                The
                    information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all
                    material
                    respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
                    the
                    Company.
 
 October
          20, 2006
 
  MICHAEL
          LAIDLAW
  Chief
          Executive Officer,
 President
          and Director


-1-
#### CANISTER CO. v. OWENS-ILLINOIS GLASS CO. et al.

No. 6623.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Feb. *25,*1938.

Warwick Potter Scott, of Philadelphia, Pa. (Knox Henderson and Ballard, Spahr, Andrews & Ingersoll, all of Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel), for appellant.

Wm. A. Schnader and Gilbert W. Oswald, both of Philadelphia, Pa. (Schnader *&*Lewis, of Philadelphia, Pa., and Williams, Eversman & Morgan, of Toledo, Ohio, of counsel), for appellees.

Before DAVIS and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges, and JOHNSON, District Judge.

JOHNSON, District Judge.

This is an appeal from a decree of the District Court for the ^Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissing a bill in equity instituted to restrain unfair competition.

The appellant for a number of years has been manufacturing and selling fibre containers. One of the features of the containers is a metal strip used, instead of glue, to bind the fibre and to serve as a distinctive design.

The appellant sold to Frankfort Distilleries, Inc., machines for assembling containers, and, from time to time, containers to be assembled by Frankfort Distilleries,, Inc. Subsequently, the Tin Decorating Company manufactured and sold to Frankfort Distilleries, Inc., metal parts and strips of the design used by appellant. Frankfort Distilleries, Inc., assembled these parts with other materials into a container resembling the appellant’s product and used it to inclose bottles of liquor.

The appellant is seeking to restrain the appellees, who have purchased the Tin Decorating Company and are carrying on its business, from manufacturing and selling the metal parts and strips. The court below concluded that no cause of action ex*304isted against the appellees, and dismissed the bill.

The basis of the complaint of unfair competition is that containers, which are sold to the trade, are manufactured in a certain distinct way resembling appellant’s products. The appellees, however, are not competitors of appellant. They do not manufacture and sell containers to the trade, but merely manufacture and sell to Frankfort Distilleries, Inc., certain metal parts. They had a right to make such metal strips according to the order of Frankfort Distilleries, Inc. Federal Electric Co. v. Flexlume Corporation, 7 Cir., 33 F.2d 412. The Frankfort Distilleries, Inc., and not appellees assemble the containers. If the containers are so assembled that they resemble appellant’s products, the appellees are not at fault. But the question whether Frankfort Distilleries, Inc., is in competition with appellant is not involved, since it is not a party defendant, and appellees are not responsible for its acts. Philadelphia Dairy Products v. Quaker City Ice Cream Co., 306 Pa. 164, 159 A. 3, 84 A.L.R. 466.

The decree of the court below, dismissing the bill of complaint, is affirmed.
#### PALL CORPOARTION, Plaintiff-Cross Appellant, v. PTI TECHNOLOGIES INC., Defendant-Appellant, and Kurabo Industries, Ltd., Defendant.

No. 00-1203, 00-1215.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

July 29, 2003.

Before SCHALL, Circuit Judge, FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and DYK, Circuit Judge.

ON MOTION

*ORDER*

The court has received a certified copy of the judgment from the clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States in *Pall Corp. v. PTI Techs. Inc.,*535 U.S. 1109, 122 S.Ct. 2324, 153 L.Ed.2d 152 (2002). The Supreme Court vacated this court’s judgment in *Pall Corp.,*259 F.3d 1383 (Fed.Cir.2001), and remanded for further consideration in light of *Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.,*535 U.S. 722, 122 S.Ct. 1831, 152 L.Ed.2d 944 (2002). The parties then filed a joint stipulation for dismissal with prejudice.1

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The mandate is recalled and the appeal is reinstated.

(2) The case shall be returned for consideration to the original merits panel.

(3) The joint stipulation for dismissal is granted.

(4) Each side shall bear its own costs.

1

. N.B. It is not this court’s usual practice, when granting joint motions to remand or dismiss, to state whether the order is granted with or without prejudice.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>         5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                       DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                  24,100
<SECURITIES>                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                          135,000
<ALLOWANCES>                             7,100
<INVENTORY>                            197,200
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       403,800
<PP&E>                                 211,800
<DEPRECIATION>                           6,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       1,105,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  443,500
<BONDS>                                102,800
<COMMON>                                   200
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<OTHER-SE>                             260,500
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         1,105,500
<SALES>                                211,200
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       211,200
<CGS>                                  173,700
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          173,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        41,900
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       7,700
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (12,100)
<INCOME-TAX>                               800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    (12,900)
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                           (12,900)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            (0.63)
<EPS-DILUTED>                            (0.63)
        

</TABLE>
#### Jim LAWRENCE v. STATE.

6 Div. 745.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 9,. 1935.

A. A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and Ernest B. Mte, of Hamilton, for the State.

J. A. Posey, of Haleyville, for respondent.

THOMAS, Justice.

Petition of the State of Alabama, by and through its Attorney General, for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that Court in Lawrence v. State, 161 So. 260.

Writ denied.

ANDERSON, C. J., and BROWN and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.
Order filed August 22, 2013

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 00107

- CV

____________ JUNE G. BARTLE , Appellant

V. MAIN STREET ACQUISIT ION CORP., Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No

. 1

Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CV

- 0067462



### O R D E R
Appellant’ s brief was due July 12, 2013

. No brief or motion for extension of
time has been filed.
Unless appellant submits a brief to the clerk of this court on or before September 20, 2013 , the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to 18 United States Code § 1350

The undersigned hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 of Phelps Dodge
Corporation (the Company) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained
in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

| |  |                    |  |                                                  
| |  | ------------------ |  | -------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ Ramiro G. Peru
| |  | Name:              |  | Ramiro G. Peru                                   
| |  | Title:             |  | Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
| |  | Date:              |  | May 13, 2003                                     



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.

The foregoing certification is being furnished in accordance with
Securities and Exchange Commission Release No. 34-47551 and shall not
be considered filed as part of the Form 10-Q.