alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Vance BYRD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert L. EHRLICH, Jr., Governor; Mary Ann Saar, Secretary of Public Safety and Correctional Services, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 03-6849.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 14, 2003.

Decided Aug. 22, 2003.

Vance Byrd, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Vance Byrd appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Byrd v. Ehrlich,*No. CA-03-01270-03-WDQ (D. Md. filed May 19, 2003; entered May 20, 2003). 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 15



                           Accountants' Acknowledgment


Linens 'n Things, Inc.
Clifton, New Jersey

Board of Directors:

Re:   Registration Statements Numbers 333-26819, 333-26827 
      and 333-55803 on Form S-8

With  respect  to  the  subject  registration  statements,  we  acknowledge  our
awareness of the use therein of our report dated October 13, 1998 related to our
review of interim financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c)  under the  Securities  Act of 1933,  such report is not
considered  a part of a  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 the Act.




KPMG Peat Marwick LLP



New York, New York
November 10, 1998
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

Plaintiff, )

v. ) CIVIL NO. 05-384-JD

Land and Buildings Located at 295 Cyr Road, )

Littleton, New Hampshire, with all Appurtenances )

and Improvements Thereon, Owned by Wanda Yulfo )

and Luis Yulfo )

Defendant-in-rem. )

FINAL ORDER ON ASSENTED-TO MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE AND

FORFEIT $40,000.00 FOR DEFENDANT IN REM 295 CYR ROAD, LITTLETON,

NEW HAMPSHIRE, AND TO DISMISS DEFENDANT IN REM

295 CYR ROAD, LITTLETON, NEW HAMPSHIRE

1. On October 31, 2005, the United States commenced an action by Verified Complaint

for Forfeiture in Rem, seeking the forfeiture of the defendant in rem real property 295 Cyr Road,

Littleton, New Hampshire, titled to Wanda Yulfo and Luis Yulfo, pursuant to

21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7). This Complaint, along with the Notice of Complaint, Writ of Entry,

Notice of Lis Pendens, and ECF Notice, were served on all known potential claimants, including

Wanda Yulfo and Luis Yulfo.

2. Wanda Yulfo and Luis Yulfo filed timely claims.

3. The United States and claimants, Wanda Yulfo and Luis Yulfo, have reached an

agreement which provides for the substitution of $40,000.00 in United States funds for the res of

the defendant in rem, 295 Cyr Road, Littleton, New Hampshire, and for the forfeiture of the

substitute res. The defendant in rem 295 Cyr Road, Littleton, New Hampshire, will be dismissed

from this action.

Case 1:05-cv-00384-JD Document 26 Filed 01/10/07 Page 1 of 2
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:

A. That the sum of $40, 000.00 in U.S. Currency is hereby substituted as the res for the

defendant in rem 295 Cyr Road, Littleton, New Hampshire;

B. That the defendant in rem 295 Cyr Road, Littleton, New Hampshire is hereby

dismissed from this proceeding;

C. That all rights, title and interests to the substituted defendant in rem $40, 000.00 in

United States Currency is hereby condemned, forfeited and vested in the United States of

America pursuant to 21 U. S.C. § 881(a)(7), free from the claims of any other party;

D. That the substituted defendant in rem $40, 000.00 in United States Currency shall

be disposed of by the United States Marshals Service (USMS) in accordance with the applicable

law and regulations . These funds, less costs to the USMS associated with the defendant in rem,

shall be deposited into the Department of Justice Asset Forfeiture Fund in accordance with

Title 28, United States Code, Section 524(c) and Title 21, United States Code, Section 881(e);

E. Wanda Yulfo and Luis Yulfo shall bear their own costs of this proceeding, including

attorney's fees, if any.

The Clerk is hereby directed to send two certified copies of this Order to the United

States Marshals Service and a copy to the United States Attorney's Office, Attention: Assistant

U.S. Attorney Robert J. Rabuck.

Dated:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

January 10, 2007 /s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Case 1:05-cv-00384-JD Document 26 Filed 01/10/07 Page 2 of 2
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 4801** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. JONATHAN NOL

- TERRON, a/k/a Ariel Molina Hernandez , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. William L. Osteen, Jr. , Chief District Judge. ( 1:12

- cr - 00113

- WO

- 2 )

Submitted : April 29, 2013 Decided: May 24, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Todd Allen Smith, LAW OFFICE OF TODD ALLEN SMITH, Graham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Michael F. Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Gr eensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Jonathan Nol

- Terron, a/k/a Ariel Molina Hernandez, pled guilty to possessing five or more false identification documents in violation o f 18 U.S.C. A. §§ 1028(a)(3) , (b)(2)(B) (West 2000 & Supp. 2012) , 18 U.S.C. § 2 ( 2006 ) (Count 4), and to illegal reentry of an aggravated felon in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) ( 2006 ) (Count 5). On appeal , Nol

- Terron asks w hether the district court erred at his sentencing hearing by ruling that the two offenses to which he pled guilty were not related
counts under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 3D1.2 (2011) . Nol

- Terron argues that , because his two offenses should have been grouped under USS G § 3D1.2, he should not have received a two

- level multiple count adjustment under USSG
§ 3D1.4 . For the reasons that follow, we affirm. Grouping decisions are reviewed for clear error. As United States v. Pitts , 176 F.3d 239 (4th Cir. 1999)
. The
Se ntencing Guidelines provide that if a defendant is convicted of multiple counts “involving substantially the same harm,” the counts “shall be grouped together.” USSG § 3D1.2. Counts implicate substantially the same harm when they “involve the same victim and two or more acts or transactions connected by a common criminal objective or constituting part of a common scheme or plan.” USSG § 3D1.2(b) . Here, the district court found that there were two different victims or goals to be3 protected, i.e. the immig ration offense (Count 5) was intended to protect national borders whereas the identification offense (Count 4) was intended to protect society’s interest in the integrity of various identification documents. (J.A. 81

- 82). We find no clear error in the di strict court’s above finding. Pitts , 176 F.3d at 244. Accordingly, we affirm Nol

- Terron’s sentence. We dispense with oral argument as the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not a id the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**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 Cash Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-QSB
      for the period ended August 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, being, Bruce
      Korman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Edmund King, Chief Financial
      Officer of the Company, respectively, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
      as
      adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operation of the Company.








Dated:
                October 22, 2007/s/
                Bruce Korman
            
            
            /s/
                Edmund KingChief
                Executive Officer
            
            
            Chief
                Financial Officer





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 (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 Cash Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Cash Technologies,
      Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
# United States Court of Appeals **for the Fifth Circuit**

No. 22-10152 Summary Calendar

United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee ,

versus
Bouaphanh Phanyavong,
Defendant—Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:21-CR-186-1

Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Bouaphanh Phanyavong has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Phanyavong has not filed a response.

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 9, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-10152 Document: 00516465819 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/09/2022No. 22-10152

2 We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appe llate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED

. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Case: 22-10152 Document: 00516465819 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/09/2022
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Remedios Nario SOTO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-6653.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 14, 2003.

Decided Aug. 21, 2003.

Remedios Nario Soto, Appellant Pro Se. Timika Shafeek, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Remedios Nario Soto seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Soto has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). We dis*288pense 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.*
## State of N ew York Su p reme Cou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: February 18, 2016 520697

________________________________ In the Matter of WILLIAM G., Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent. JONATHAN WOOD, as Tompkins MEMORANDUM AND ORDER County Attorney, Respondent; WILLIAM G., Appellant.

________________________________ Calendar Date: January 5, 2016 Before: McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Lynch and Clark, JJ.

__________ Pamela Bleiwas, Ithaca, for appellant. Jonathan Wood, County Attorney, Ithaca (William J. Troy III of counsel), for respondent.

__________ Lynch, J. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Tompkins County (Rowley, J.), entered August 19, 2014, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 3, to adjudicate respondent a juvenile delinquent. In February 2014, respondent appeared in Cortland County Family Court (Ames, J.) and admitted committing an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal sexual act in the first degree. Family Court issued an order upon fact-finding adjudicating respondent to be a juvenile delinquent and ordering a predispositional report. Family Court-2- 520697

thereafter transferred the matter to Tompkins County, where respondent resided, for disposition. After a dispositional hearing, Tompkins County Family Court (Rowley, J.) ordered respondent to be placed with the Tompkins County Department of Social Services for one year for "non-secure placement with the William George Agency, specializing in sex offender treatment." Respondent appeals. Respondent's core argument on this appeal is that Family Court violated the terms of the plea agreement by placing him outside his home. He further asserts that the evidence did not warrant his placement in a residential treatment facility, as the least restrictive available alternative. Inasmuch as the dispositional order expired by its own terms in August 2015, these claims are moot (see Matter of Clarence D., 88 AD3d 1074, 1075 [2011]; Matter of Clifton NN., 64 AD3d 903, 905 [2009]; Matter of Brett W., 62 AD3d 1050, 1051 [2009]). That said, the record shows that the plea was accepted without any promises as to what the actual disposition would be. McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr. and Clark, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Josephine Amatucci

v. Civil No. 05-cv-259-SM

Charles Hamilton, and

James O’Brien, in

their individual and

official capacities

O R D E R

Re: Plaintiff Motions’ New Hampshire State Law Jurisdiction

for Claims, Concurrently, with Federal Law Jurisdiction

to Plead Her Case (Document No. 54)

Ruling: Denied. The motion is not clear as to the relief

plaintiff seeks. The court earlier granted a motion by

defendants seeking to preclude plaintiff’s introduction of expert

testimony, on grounds that plaintiff failed to make the requisite

disclosures. This motion seems related to that decision, at

least in part, but it is not clear how. The short of it is that

to the extent plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the earlier

order precluding her from introducing expert testimony the motion

is denied as plaintiff offers no grounds warranting such relief. 

Otherwise, no ruling is required as plaintiff seems merely to be

stating her position with respect to the law applicable to some

of her claims.

Case 1:05-cv-00259-SM Document 72 Filed 01/03/07 Page 1 of 2
2

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

January 3, 2007

cc: Josephine Amatucci

R. Matthew Cairns, Esq.

Lisa Lee, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00259-SM Document 72 Filed 01/03/07 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

John Buck

v. Case No. 05-cv-352-PB

Scale Models, Arts and

Technologies, Inc., et al.

O R D E R

The complaint was properly served in accordance with Fed. R.

Civ. P. 4 and New Hampshire law. Defendant does not assert that

it failed to receive timely notice of the action. The court

plainly has specific personal jurisdiction over the defendant. 

Thus, defendant’s venue challenge is governed by 28 U.S.C.

2404(a). When I evaluate the defendant’s request to change venue

using the criteria outlined in Coady v. Ashcraft & Gerel, 223

F.3d 1, 11 (1st Cir. 2001), it is apparent that the case should

remain in this district. The motion to dismiss (doc. no. 6) is

denied.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

March 14, 2006

cc: David N. Cole, Esq.

Jennifer Sawyer, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00352-PB Document 10 Filed 03/14/06 Page 1 of 1
#### STATE v. MOORE.

No. 14102.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

March 7, 1932.

E. M. Heath, of New Orleans, for appellant.

C. J. Rivet, of New Orleans, for the State.

WESTERFIELD, J.

Appellee moves to dismiss this appeal on the ground that this court is without jurisdiction, for the reason that the issue presented involves the legality of a tax which, under section 10, art. 7, of the Constitution of 1921, the Supreme Court alone has jurisdiction regardless of the amount involved.

The issue presented here is the right of the state of Louisiana to collect a license tax from the defendant, a practicing dentist in the city of New Orleans, based upon his gross annual receipts without deduction of expenses incurted by him for laboratory, work and X-ray examinations, the defendant contending that these expenses should be deducted because not essential to the practice of dentistry and more appropriate to the calling of a mechanic. It is not denied that some tax is due, but the amount of the tax is in dispute.

In the case of Downs v. Dunn, 162 La. 747, 111 So. 82, it was held that, where the applicability of a taxing statute to an entire class is in dispute, its legality is in contest, though it is otherwise in a case where the application to an individual defendant is challenged. Here all dentists are affected by the construction to be placed on the law, since the testimony shows that it is customary in the profession to undertake laboratory work and X-ray examinations in connection with dental work proper usually regarded as confined to the oral cavity.

In view of the provisions of Act No. 19 of 1912, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that this appeal be and it is transferred to the Supreme Court of Louisiana to be disposed of according to law; the transfer to be made within sixty days after this judgment becomes final, and, if not so made, then the appeal to be deemed dismissed; defendant and appellant to pay the costs of appeal in this court, the remaining costs to await final determination of the matter.

Appeal transferred to the Supreme Court.
8:23-cv-00237-MDN   Doc # 1   Filed: 06/01/23   Page 1 of 8 - Page ID # 1

8:23-cv-00237-MDN   Doc # 1   Filed: 06/01/23   Page 2 of 8 - Page ID # 2

8:23-cv-00237-MDN   Doc # 1   Filed: 06/01/23   Page 3 of 8 - Page ID # 3

8:23-cv-00237-MDN   Doc # 1   Filed: 06/01/23   Page 4 of 8 - Page ID # 4

8:23-cv-00237-MDN   Doc # 1   Filed: 06/01/23   Page 5 of 8 - Page ID # 5

8:23-cv-00237-MDN   Doc # 1   Filed: 06/01/23   Page 6 of 8 - Page ID # 6

8:23-cv-00237-MDN   Doc # 1   Filed: 06/01/23   Page 7 of 8 - Page ID # 7

8:23-cv-00237-MDN   Doc # 1   Filed: 06/01/23   Page 8 of 8 - Page ID # 8
#### Walter T. JACKSON, Appellant, v. Jeanette I. Dion JACKSON, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

Feb. 5, 1954.

Appéal from Circuit Court, Broward County; Lamar. Warren, Judge.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE COVANCE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001023131
<NAME> COVANCE INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> US$

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      12,398,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              209,072,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 25,840,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           300,857,000
<PP&E>                                     322,535,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              31,628,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             690,959,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      187,115,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       589,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 267,565,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               690,959,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           624,612,000
<CGS>                                      416,979,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              562,088,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                59,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           7,087,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             55,378,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                22,317,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         33,061,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                33,061,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.56


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         291,203
<SECURITIES>                                   111,002
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,957,682
<ALLOWANCES>                                 5,937,914
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,462,810
<PP&E>                                         440,003
<DEPRECIATION>                                 236,026
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,668,187
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,440,419
<BONDS>                                        298,740
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,262
<COMMON>                                           846
<OTHER-SE>                                    (70,972)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,668,187
<SALES>                                      2,319,208
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,319,208
<CGS>                                        1,742,997
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,742,997
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               278,173
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               670,736
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,186
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (396,884)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (396,884)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (396,884)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    ($0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  ($0.08)


</TABLE>