alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7457

GARY DARWIN BLACK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN, JAMES RIVER CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-1095-AM) Submitted: January 20, 2000 Decided: February 2, 2000 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary Darwin Black, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on October 5, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on October 6, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Gary Darwin Black appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court'sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Black v. Warden, James River Correctional Ctr. , No. CA-99-1095-AM (E.D. Va. Oct. 6, 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.

DISMISSED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-44-PB

Arthur Durham

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

April 3, 2007 trial in the above case, citing the need for

additional time to complete discovery and engage in plea

negotiations. The government does not object to a continuance of

the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reasons and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from April 3, 2007 to June 5, 2007. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:07-cr-00044-PB Document 8 Filed 03/22/07 Page 1 of 2
2

The March 22, 2007 final pretrial conference is continued to 

May 22, 2007 at 4:30 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

March 22, 2007

cc: Sven Wiberg, Esq.

Terry Ollila, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00044-PB Document 8 Filed 03/22/07 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Raymond A. Stankunas

v. 06-cv-44-SM

Joseph Statkus, et al. 

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated May 15, 2006, for the reasons set forth therein, no objection

having been filed. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction is hereby denied.

Plaintiff’s complaint is hereby dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

SO ORDERED.

June 13, 2006 _________________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Raymond Stankunas, Esq.

Marie M. McPartlin, Esq.

R. Matthew Cairns, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00044-SM Document 24 Filed 06/13/06 Page 1 of 1
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway,

 Justices

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

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

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

July 26, 2010 

s0719 

Order 

 

July 26, 2010 

140332 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140332 

 COA: 293770 

Missaukee CC: 2004-001905-FH 

ROBERT EUGENE KREGEAR, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 9, 2009 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
U. ;. DISTRICT CO1ll T

U1iSTR T OF N.H.

i- 1 L E D

2^^1 J M1N - 5 P 12: 0 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Steven A. Swan

V.

Paul Barbadoro, et al.

Civil No. 06-fp-458

O R D E R

All of the judges in this district were recused from

presiding over this case. Accordingly, the case shall be

referred to the District of Maine; sitting by designation.

The recusal of all of the judges on this court gives rise to

an "emergency" with respect to the referred case as that term is

used in 28 U.S.C. § 636(f). I therefore concur in the assignment

of a magistrate judge from the designated district to perform the

duties specified in 28 U.S.C. § 636(a)-(c).

SO ORDERED.

December 28, 2006

cc: Clerk, USDC, Maine

Steven A. Swan, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00458-GZS Document 11 Filed 01/03/2007 Page 1 of 2

Swan v. Barbadoro et al Doc. 11

Dockets.Justia.com
Concurring Order

I concur that an emergency exists as specified above and

/('

that for the duration of this case Magistrate Judge /l r4 y C & VLL \

is assigned to perform such duties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(a)-(c)

as may be assigned to him by the district judge to whom this case

is assigned.

Date:

cc: Steven A. Swan, pro se

2

Case 1:06-cv-00458-GZS Document 11 Filed 01/03/2007 Page 2 of 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  Annual  Report  of  Advance  Financial  Bancorp  (the
"Company") on Form 10QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  we,
Stephen M.  Gagliardi,  President and Chief  Executive  Officer,  and Stephen M.
Magnone,  Treasurer (Chief  Financial  Officer),  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C
Section 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 operations of the
Company.




/s/Stephen M. Gagliardi                     /s/Stephen M. Magnone
-------------------------------------       -----------------------------------
Stephen M. Gagliardi                        Stephen M. Magnone
President and Chief Executive Officer       Treasurer (Chief Financial Officer)




November 12, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                            53,672
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                           36,482
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                             37,690
<EQUITIES>                                      17,783
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 114,461
<CASH>                                          10,036
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                               6,661
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                           9,592
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 180,854
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                 47,868
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                             41,614
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                  7,082
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        38,767
<OTHER-SE>                                      38,556
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   180,854
<PREMIUMS>                                      56,016
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              4,355
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                               1,282
<OTHER-INCOME>                                   1,825
<BENEFITS>                                      36,329
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                          0
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            26,850
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    248
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (44)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                292
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       292
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.07
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                  48,719
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                 47,868
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### Fred SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

Nov. 16, 1954.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 2, 1954.

B. L. Solomon, Marianna, for appellant.

Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., John S. Lloyd, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

TERRELL, Justice.

Appellant was informed against, tried and convicted for stealing 12 hogs in Jackson County, Florida. He was sentenced to serve two years in the State penitentiary, is unhappy about his plight and importunes this Court to reverse the judgment imposed on him. His confederate, Fred Raybon, *494was convicted and sentenced at the same time but his conviction was reversed because of unsatisfactory proof as to identity. Raybon v. State, Fla., 75 So.2d 7.

The only point for determination is whether or not the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.

The evidence was circumstantial but it may be said to have been more conclusive as to appellant than it was as to Raybon. The witnesses Joiner and Oliver both positively identified appellant at the pen where the hogs were stolen on Sunday shortly before the stealing. The witness Kinard testified to seeing appellant at the pen the night the hogs were stolen. The Sheriff made plaster casts of the truck tracks made at the scene of the crime and identified the tires of appellants by comparison with them. The plaster casts and the tires of the truck were placed in evidence. The ground around the pen where the hogs were stolen had been recently ploughed, making the truck tracks very plain. The plaster casts of truck tires matched those of appellant perfectly.

Ernest Kinard, a filling station operator, testified that he sold Smith and Raybon gas after midnight the night the hogs were stolen and within three miles of where the stealing took place. The witness Bob Donalson testified that he purchased 13 hogs weighing about 200 pounds average from appellant and Raybon early in the morning of September 30. These hogs corresponded to those that were stolen the night before. It would seem that these facts were sufficient to warrant the jury in fastening the crime on appellant since he did not go on the stand and attempt to explain his possession of the hogs. Cone v. State, Fla., 69 So.2d 175, and cases cited.

The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.

Affirmed.

ROBERTS, C. J., and SEBRING and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-105-PB

Vincent Chaney

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

trial scheduled for March 2, 2010, citing the need for additional

time to finalize plea negotiations and schedule a plea hearing. 

The government does not object to a continuance of the trial

date.

Accordingly, for the above reasons and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from March 2, 2010 to April 6, 2010. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(7) that for the above-stated reasons, the ends

of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the best

interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:06-cr-00105-PB Document 135 Filed 02/16/10 Page 1 of 2
The February 18, 2010 final pretrial conference is

cancelled. No further continuances will be granted in this case.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

February 16, 2010

cc: Patrick J. Richard, Esq.

William Morse, Esq.

United States Marshal

United States Probation

2

Case 1:06-cr-00105-PB Document 135 Filed 02/16/10 Page 2 of 2
1. Gold held ‘‘under earmark’’ at Federal Reserve Banks for foreign and international

accounts is not included in the gold stock of the United States; see table 3.13, line 3. Gold

stock is valued at $42.22 per fine troy ounce.

2. Special drawing rights (SDRs) are valued according to a technique adopted by the

International Monetary Fund (IMF) in July 1974. Values are based on a weighted average of

exchange rates for the currencies of member countries. From July 1974 through December

1980, sixteen currencies were used; since January 1981, five currencies have been used. U.S.

SDR holdings and reserve positions in the IMF also have been valued on this basis since July

1974.

3. Includes allocations of SDRs by the International Monetary Fund on Jan. 1 of the year

indicated, as follows: 1970—$867 million; 1971—$717 million; 1972—$710 million; 1979—

$1,139 million; 1980—$1,152 million; 1981—$1,093 million; plus net transactions in SDRs.

4. Valued at current market exchange rates.

3.13 FOREIGN OFFICIAL ASSETS HELD AT FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS1

Millions of dollars, end of period

Asset 1997 1998 1999

2000

Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov.p

1 Deposits .............................. 457 167 71 142 110 104 76 78 139 115 104

Held in custody

2 U.S. Treasury securities2 ................. 620,885 607,574 632,482 632,216 623,553 627,081 624,177 628,001 611,641 595,591 591,071

3 Earmarked gold3 ........................ 10,763 10,343 9,933 9,711 9,711 9,688 9,688 9,674 9,620 9,565 9,505

1. Excludes deposits and U.S. Treasury securities held for international and regional

organizations.

2. Marketable U.S. Treasury bills, notes, and bonds and nonmarketable U.S. Treasury

securities, in each case measured at face (not market) value.

3. Held in foreign and international accounts and valued at $42.22 per fine troy ounce; not

included in the gold stock of the United States.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Kathleen Mary O’Dell

v. Civil No. 07-12-JD

United States of America

PROCEDURAL ORDER

The movant has filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to

vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence ordered by the court

in United States of America v. Kathleen Mary O’Dell, Cr. 03-cr61-02-JD on January 13, 2006. The court has reviewed the motion.

The court orders the United States Attorney to file an

answer within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, which

answer shall provide a detailed response, with appropriate

references to the record when necessary, to each claim asserted

by the movant.

In the event that the United States Attorney contends that

the motion is not timely filed under the limitations provided for

in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 or that it is a second or successive motion, 

Case 1:07-cv-00012-JD Document 2 Filed 01/18/07 Page 1 of 2
2

a motion to dismiss in lieu of a response shall be filed within

thirty (30) days of the date of this order.

 SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

District Judge

January 18, 2007

cc: William E. Christie, Esquire

Case 1:07-cv-00012-JD Document 2 Filed 01/18/07 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:05-cv-00133-SM Document 16 Filed 08/29/05 Page 1 of 2Case 1:05-cv-00133-SM Document 16 Filed 08/29/05 Page 2 of 2
#### Albert L. CHRISTENSEN v. Robert H. HUDSPETH, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas.

No. 1652.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Jan. 27, 1938.

Homer Davis, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Topeka, Kan., for appellee.

Before LEWIS and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed on motion of appellee, at appellant’s costs.
December 18, 2014



### JUDGMENT



## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

CHOPRA AND ASSOCIATE S , Appellant

NO. 14

- 13

- 01099

- CV V.

U.S. IMAGING, INC. , Appellee

________________________________ This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appel lee, U.S. Imaging, Inc., signed November 18, 2013, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We orde r the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED

. We order appellant, Chopra and Associates, jointly and severally, to pay all costs incurred in this appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed June 27, 2018.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D18-0213

Lower Tribunal No. 05-12895

________________



### Torrance Kenneth Rogers

,

Petitioner,

vs.



### The State of Florida

, Respondent.

A Case of Original Jurisdiction

– Prohibition.

Torrance Kenneth Rogers

, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and David Llanes, Assistant Attorney

General

, for respondent.

Before SUAREZ, LAGOA and LUCK, JJ.

SUAREZ, J.

Torrance Rogers petitions this Court for a writ of prohibition seeking to

dismiss a petition, filed below, for civil commitment of a sexually violent predator

(a “Ryce Act” petition). Rogers claims the trial court violated his rights under

section 394.916, Florida Statutes (2017), when it did not commence a jury trialwithin thirty days of his request in open court. Because Rogers has an adequate

remedy below, we dismiss his petition for writ of prohibition as premature. See

Osborne v. State

, 907 So. 2d 505, 507 (Fla. 2005) (“[Defendant] moved to dismiss

the Ryce Act petition against him on the basis that the State failed to bring the case

to trial within the thirty days of the trial court's probable cause finding, as required

by section 394.916(1), Florida Statutes (1999).”); State v. Goode

, 830 So. 2d 817,

819 (Fla. 2002) (“[W]hile [Defendant] was still being detained without

trial, defense counsel filed two additional motions to dismiss the proceedings, and

.

. . a hearing on [Defendant ’s] motions to dismiss was held before

. . . the assigned

judge. At the conclusion of the hearing, [the judge] dismissed the proceedings on a

violation of the statutory provision requiring a final hearing to commence within

thirty days of the ex parte finding of probable cause.”).

Dismissed.

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE ALTIVA FINANCIAL CORPORATION FOR THE NINE MONTHS
ENDED MAY 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1999
<CASH>                                           9,231
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,688
<ALLOWANCES>                                       399
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           4,365
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,775
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  84,709
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,042
<BONDS>                                         30,750
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                           306
<OTHER-SE>                                      22,610
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    84,709
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  (197)
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,469
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (276)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  96
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (13,666)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (5,177)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (8,489)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  4,812
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3,677)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (1.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.20)


</TABLE>