alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7471

DEXTER PALMER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

CECELIA REYNOLDS, Warden at Lee Correctional Institution,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Anderson. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (8:15-cv-02571-MBS)

Submitted: May 18, 2017 Decided: June 5, 2017

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dexter Palmer, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General, 

Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Dexter Palmer seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) 

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

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); see 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 petition states a debatable claim of 

the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Palmer 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 legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit
      23.1







Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
      of
      Span-America Medical Systems, Inc. of our report dated November 2, 2005,
      included in the 2005 Annual Report to Shareholders of Span-America Medical
      Systems, Inc.





Our
      audits also included the financial statement schedule of Span-America Medical
      Systems, Inc. listed in Item 15(a) for the years ended October 1, 2005, October
      2, 2004, and September 27, 2003. This schedule is the responsibility of the
      Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on
      our
      audits. In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above,
      when
      considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole,
      presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth
      therein.





We
      also
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
      S-8 No. 33-32896) pertaining to the Span-America Medical Systems, Inc. 1987
      Stock Option Plan and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-84374)
      pertaining to the Span-America Medical Systems, Inc. 1991 Stock Option Plan
      and
      in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-70533) pertaining to the
      Span-America Medical Systems, Inc. 1997 Stock Option Plan and in the
      Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-75656) pertaining to the Span-America
      Medical Systems, Inc. 2000 Restricted Stock Plan of our report dated November
      1,
      2005 with respect to the financial statements incorporated herein by reference,
      and our report included in the preceding paragraph with respect to the financial
      statement schedule included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Span-America
      Medical Systems, Inc.








/s/ ELLIOTT DAVIS, LLCGreenville, South CarolinaDecember
              29, 2005







59
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MAURICE SHOATZ,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 156 EAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 19th day of August, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
#### The AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO. OF HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. Mrs. W. Horace WILLIAMS et al., Defendants, Appellants.

No. 17883.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

April 3, 1944.

Frank H. Langridge and Waverly A. Henning, both of Gretna for plaintiffs-ap-pellees.

Edward Rightor and H. Sellers, both of New Orleans, for defendants-appellants.

McCALEB, Judge.

This case was consolidated for trial with the matter entitled Boudra v. Williams et al., No. 17,884, 17 So.2d 502, and it was agreed between counsel of record that the decision rendered in the Boudra case would be determinative of the issue presented herein.

Therefore, for the reasons assigned in our opinion handed down this day in case No. 17,884 of the docket, the judgment appealed from is reversed, and it is now ordered that plaintiff’s suit be dismissed at its cost.

Reversed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary 

          - [Transmittal Nos. 08-16] 

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(l) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 July 1996. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601-3740. 

The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittals 08-16 with attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology. 

Dated: September 25, 2008. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer,  Department of Defense.

      ( print page 58153)          ( print page 58154)          ( print page 58155)          ( print page 58156)          ( print page 58157)    

 [FR Doc. E8-23335 Filed 10-3-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 197 (Thursday, October 9, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 59675]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24057]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice (08-069)]


Government-Owned Inventions, Available for Licensing

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of Availability of Inventions for Licensing.

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

SUMMARY: Patent applications on the inventions listed below assigned to 
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, have been filed in 
the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and are available for 
licensing.

DATES: October 9, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert M. Padilla, Patent Counsel, 
Ames Research Center, Code 202A-4, Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000; 
telephone (650) 604-5104; fax (650) 604-2767.
    NASA Case No. ARC-15977-1: Artificial Immune System Approach For 
Airborne Vehicle Maneuvering;
    NASA Case No. ARC 16135-1: Efficiency Solar Cell Using Nano-
Sculpted Substrate.

    Dated: October 3, 2008.
Michael C. Wholley,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. E8-24057 Filed 10-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
#### CASINO FOODS CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KRAFTCO CORPORATION et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 75-1936.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Nov. 15, 1976.

*302Herbert Sachs, Bellmore, N.Y. (argued), David M. Printz, Las Vegas, Nev., for plaintiff-appellant.

Alan I. Greene, Chicago, 111. (argued) and C. Lee Cook, Jr., of Chadwell, Kayser, Ruggles, McGee & Hastings, Chicago, 111., James E. Ordowski, Melvin D. Close, Jr., of Jones, Jones, Close, Bilbray, Kaufman & Olson, Raggio, Walker, Wooster & Pilkington, Las Vegas, Nev., for defendants-appellees.

*

The Honorable William G. East, Senior United States District Judge, District of Oregon, sitting by designation.

ORDER ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

Before CHAMBERS and CHOY, Circuit Judges, and EAST,* District Judge.

We find appellant’s argument against this court’s affirmance of the district court’s granting of summary judgment for Kraftco without merit. No genuine issue of material fact existed to support appellant’s allegation of conspiracy, and summary judgment therefore was proper.

Similarly, appellant’s contentions regarding certain subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum served by it upon agents of the FBI are of no avail. It seems that appellant desired confirmation by the FBI that New-ell Howlett, of Howlett Olson Egg Co., one of the appellees, had complained about appellant to the FBI, which then investigated appellant. Howlett refused to answer any questions about that complaint during the taking of his pre-trial deposition. Appellant failed to request the court to compel Howlett to answer under F.R.Civ.P. 37. Appellant also did not attempt to obtain the information by utilizing the regulatory procedures implementing the Freedom of Information Act. *See*5 U.S.C. § 552; 28 C.F.R. §§ 16.1-.10 (1975). Finally, the district court found that “even if Howlett [had] filed a complaint with the FBI concerning Casino, there is no indication that Kraftco is somehow involved thereby in a conspiracy.” Appellant therefore was not prejudiced by the quashing of the subpoenas.

Appellant initially maintained in its brief that the district court had failed to make a final disposition on the government’s motion to quash the subpoenas (thus rendering the matter nonappealable), but now instead charges this court in its petition for rehearing with failure to consider the district court’s *granting*of the government’s motion to quash. Despite this inconsistency, the record indicates that the district court did in fact order the subpoenas quashed, and we find no abuse of discretion in that order. *See Baker v. F & F Investment,*470 F.2d 778 (2d Cir. 1972), *cert. denied,*411 U.S. 966, 93 S.Ct. 2147, 36 L.Ed.2d 686 (1973).

Appellant’s petition for rehearing accordingly is denied.

CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge, recused himself from acting on the petition for rehearing.
#### Commonwealth, Appellant, *v.*Snaman.

*384June 29, 1938:

Argued April 25, 1938.

Before Keller, P. J., Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadteeld, Parker and Rhodes, JJ.

Before Gardner, J., without a jury.

*Louis L. Kaufman,*with him *Andrew T. Parle,*District Attorney, and *E. T. Adair,*Assistant District Attorney, for appellant.

*Ralph P. Tannehill,*for appellee, was not heard.

Opinion by

Keller, P. J.,

Defendant was indicted for wilfully neglecting to support his child born out of wedlock (Act of July 11, 1917, P. L. 773, as amended by the Act of July 21, 1919, P. L. 1075), Pursuant to the Act of June 11, *3851935, P. L. 319, the defendant, with the consent of his attorney of record, the judge and the district attorney, waived a trial by jury and elected to be tried by a judge without a jury.

The trial was had before Judge Samuel H. Gardner, who at the conclusion of the case, adjudged the defendant not guilty and ordered the County to pay the costs. The Commonwealth appealed. The appeal will be quashed.

We have ruled in. a number of cases *(Com. v. Coble,*9 Pa. Superior Ct. 215; *Com. v. Stillwagon,*13 Pa. Superior Ct. 547; *Com. v. Weber,*66 Pa. Superior Ct. 180; *Com. v. Preston,*92 Pa. Superior Ct. 159) that an appeal by the Commonwealth will not lie from a verdict of acquittal in a criminal prosecution, except in cases where an appeal is allowed by statute, as in nuisance, forcible entry and detainer, and forcible detainer, by the Act of May 19, 1874, P. L. 219.

By the Act of 1935, supra, the judge, who tries a criminal case, when a jury trial has been waived, is given jurisdiction to hold the trial and to hear, try and determine all issues of law and fact, and to render a general verdict in like manner as if the defendant had put himself “upon the country for trial, and his case were being tried before a jury.” The ‘verdict’ of the judge so trying the case has the same force and effect as the verdict of a jury. It is a determination of fact as well as law, and if the defendant is acquitted an appeal by the Commonwealth will not lie any more than in the case of an acquittal by a jury.

The defendant did not demur to the evidence. He simply offered no testimony, which is an entirely different thing. Upon a demurrer to the evidence in a criminal case the judge is not a trier of fact: *Com. v. Smith,*97 Pa. Superior Ct. 157, 161; *Com. v. Williams,*71 Pa. Superior Ct. 311, 313. He only applies the law to the facts *admitted*by the demurrer. The defendant *386in this case *admitted*no facts; he did not choose to present testimony — which admits nothing. If there is no serious dispute as to the facts in a criminal case being tried by a judge, on waiver of a jury trial, and the trial judge is of opinion that legal questions are involved which should be passed upon by an appellate court, he should adjudge the defendant guilty, which will permit the defendant to bring the questions before the appellate court on appeal; but, just as in trials by jury, a verdict of not guilty or acquittal is final and no appeal by the Commonwealth lies, unless specially authorized by statute, which is wanting here.

The appeal is quashed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,217
<SECURITIES>                                    18,542
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,425
<ALLOWANCES>                                       383
<INVENTORY>                                     12,106
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                47,122
<PP&E>                                          12,481
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,973)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  71,253
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,532
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           133
<OTHER-SE>                                      61,556
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    71,253
<SALES>                                         17,837
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,837
<CGS>                                            8,495
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,770
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    51
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,297
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,248
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,049
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,049
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.15
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch

Date: February 15, 2013

Courtroom Deputy: J. Chris Smith

FTR Technician: Kathy Terasaki

____________________________________________________________________________________

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02584-RPM

KEVIN STRINGER, L. Daniel Rector

RYAN O’NEILL, Kimberly P. Everette

JOAQUIN MARTINEZ,

CHRISTOPHER ANDERSON, and

WILLIAM LEGER III, individually and

on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Scott A. Risner

 Defendant. 

 

COURTROOM MINUTES

____________________________________________________________________________________

Hearing on Motion for Class Certification

2:00 p.m. Court in session.

Defendant’s representative Major Wayne Williams present.

Court’s preliminary remarks and statement regarding the issue of commonality.

2:04 p.m. Argument by Mr. Rector.

Mr. Rector clarifies its class definition to only the Army branch of the U.S. Armed Forces.

Ms. Everette states her client adopts Mr. Rector’s argument.

2:24 p.m. Argument by Mr. Risner.

2:43 p.m. Rebuttal argument by Mr. Rector.

2:51 p.m. Further argument by Mr. Risner

Court and counsel agree that both sides will each select one Colorado resident plaintiff to serve as

test cases. Mr. Risner will file applicable Administrative records and plaintiffs’ counsel may file a

motion for leave to supplement the records if necessary. 

ORDERED: Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification [51], is deferred.

2:55 p.m. Court in recess. Hearing concluded. Total time: 55 min.

Case 1:11-cv-02584-RPM Document 61 Filed 02/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 3.3
   Articles of Amendment of Articles of Incorporation of Shuffle Master, Inc.


                                                                     Exhibit 3.3


                              ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT
                                       OF
                            ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                              SHUFFLE MASTER, INC.


         The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of Shuffle Master, Inc. a
Minnesota corporation (the "Corporation"), does hereby certify that effective as
of the 26th day of October, 2000, the following resolution was adopted by the
Board of Directors of the Corporation in accordance with the applicable
provisions of Minnesota Statutes:

                  Resolution Amending Articles of Incorporation
                  ---------------------------------------------

         FURTHER RESOLVED, that the undersigned, the members of the Board of
Directors of the Corporation, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 302A.402,
hereby consent that Section 4:01 of Article IV of the amended Articles of
Incorporation be amended by deleting it in full and inserting in its place the
following Article IV, Section 4:01:

                                   "Article IV

         4:01 Number of Shares. The aggregate number of shares of Common Stock
         which this Corporation has the authority to issue is forty-five million
         (45,000,000) shares, each with One Cent ($.01) par value. Such shares
         shall consist of one class and series of voting Common Stock (except
         for 150,047 shares of Class A Preferred Stock) with equal rights and
         preferences in all matters unless and until separate classes and/or
         series are authorized by the Board of Directors pursuant to Section
         4:02 of these Articles of Incorporation."

         FURTHER RESOLVED, that the amendment of the amended Articles of
Incorporation will not adversely affect the rights or preferences of the holders
of outstanding shares of any class or series and will not result in the
percentage of authorized shares that remains unissued after the division or
combination exceeding the percentages of authorized shares that were unissued
before the division or combination; and

         FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Chief Executive Officer, President, or
Secretary of the Corporation is hereby authorized and directed to execute a
Certificate of Amendment attesting to the adoption of the foregoing amendment
and to cause such Certificate of Amendment to be filed in the office of the
Secretary of State of the State of Minnesota.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name this 3rd day of
November, 2000.

                                        /s/ Joseph J. Lahti
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Joseph J. Lahti, Chief Executive Officer


                                       42
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02486-WYD-KLM

RICHARD E. GOODWIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

STUDENT MOVERS, INC.

Defendant.

_____________________________________________________________________

MINUTE ORDER

_____________________________________________________________________

ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Caption [Docket

No. 18; Filed December 20,2 011] (the “Motion”).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED AS MOOT. Stephen T.

Linane was removed from the caption of the case on the entry of the Amended Complaint

on November 28, 2011 [#15].

The Court reminds Plaintiff that he filed his lawsuit in federal court, thus the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure govern this matter, not the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure.

Dated: December 30, 2011

Case 1:11-cv-02486-WYD-KLM Document 20 Filed 12/30/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1