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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7868

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL ANTONIO GOODMAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Terrence W. Boyle,

District Judge. (CR-92-1-BO, CA-95-31-2-BO)

Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 29, 1996

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Antonio Goodman, Appellant Pro Se. Fenita Talore Morris,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

motion for reconsideration of the order denying relief on his 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we deny Appellant's motion to remand the case and affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. United States v. Goodman, Nos. CR92-1-BO; CA-95-31-2-BO (E.D.N.C. Oct. 12, 1995). 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 11

NORTH PITTSBURGH SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

Statement of Computation of Earnings per Share

(Amounts in Thousands  Except Per Share Data)



|                                           |  |                                        |        |                                       |   |        |  |      |        |  |   |       
|------------------------------------------ |  | -------------------------------------- | ------ | ------------------------------------- | - | ------ |  | ---- | ------ |  | - | ------
|                                           |  | For the Three Months EndedSeptember 30 |        | For the Nine Months EndedSeptember 30
|                                           |  | 2006                                   |        | 2005                                  |   | 2006   |  | 2005
|Net income                                 |  | $                                      | 4,595  |                                       | $ | 5,035  |  | $    | 26,579 |  | $ | 16,183
|                                           |  |                                        |        |                                       |   |        |  |      |        |  |   |       
|Weighted average common shares outstanding |  |                                        | 15,005 |                                       |   | 15,005 |  |      | 15,005 |  |   | 15,005
|                                           |  |                                        |        |                                       |   |        |  |      |        |  |   |       
|Basic and diluted earnings per share       |  | $                                      | .31    |                                       | $ | .34    |  | $    | 1.77   |  | $ | 1.08  
|                                           |  |                                        |        |                                       |   |        |  |      |        |  |   |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FISCAL YEAR
END NOVEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1997
<CASH>                                       2,655,349
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  213,392
<ALLOWANCES>                                   161,824
<INVENTORY>                                    906,111
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,949,105
<PP&E>                                         483,481
<DEPRECIATION>                                 238,827
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,023,205
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,030,603
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    14,826,762
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,203,205
<SALES>                                        477,588
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               477,588
<CGS>                                          582,344
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,167,808
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,724
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,277,288)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,278,088)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.14)
        

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE COMPANY AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           4,936
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,835
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,214
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                22,365
<PP&E>                                         380,006
<DEPRECIATION>                                (100,073)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 359,246
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,595
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           403
<OTHER-SE>                                     226,598
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   359,246
<SALES>                                         22,107
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,107
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,531
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,707
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2,045)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       720
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,325)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,325)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.03)
        

</TABLE>
178 La. 366

#### STATE v. CHEATHAM et al.

No. 32618.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 27, 1933.

Pugh & Lanier, of Thibodaux, for appellant.

G. L. Porterie, Atty. Gen., Aubert L. Talbot, Dist. Atty., of Napoleonville (James O’Niell, Sp. Asst to Atty. Gen., of counsel), for the State.

ROGERS, Justice.

Andrew Cheatham was tried, convicted, and sentenced for burglary, and has appealed.

The indictment charged that the crime was committed on the 5th day of February, 1932, while the indictment, itself, was not found until the 27th day of February, 1933.

After his conviction and before sentence, the defendant filed a motion in arrest of judgment, on the ground that the crime of which he was convicted was prescribed.

Article 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that: “No person shall be prosecuted, tried or punished for any offense [certain felonies excepted], unless the indictment, presentment or information for the same be found, exhibited or filed * * * within one year after the offense shall have been made known to the judge, district attorney or Grand Jury having jurisdiction. * * * »

Burglary is not one of the excepted offenses, and therefore, unless one of the causes- exist for the suspension of prescription, the prescription for such crime is b.arred by the codal provision. But the indictment here contains no allegation of fact which would suspend prescription, and, on the face of the record, defendant’s prosecution for the crime charged is barred by limitation. State v. Foley, 113 La. 206, 36 So. 940; State v. Hoffman, 120 La. 949, 45 So. 951; State v. McNeal, 159 La. 386, 105 So. 381.

However, the motion in arrest was overruled by the trial judge, after he had permitted the state, over defendant’s objection, to introduce evidence tending to show the suspension of the prescription appearing on the face of the indictment. This was error. To admit proof on the trial of facts necessary to suspend prescription, it is essential that these facts be alleged in the indictment. State v. Victor, 36 La. Ann. 978; State v. Joseph, 40 La. Ann. 5, 3 So. 405.

Counsel for the state submitted the case on the record, with the request that, if the conviction and sentence be annulled and the judgment arrested, the right be reserved to the state to prosecute defendant under a valid indictment.

There are some adjudicated cases in which such a reservation has been made, but we fail to see the necessity therefor. If the state has the right to a further prosecution of the defendant for the offense charged, a reservation of the right is superfluous. On the other hand, if the state has not such right, no reservation by this court can create it.

For the reasons assigned, defendant’s conviction is set aside, and the judgment and sentence thereon are arrested'.
<PAGE>

[LETTERHEAD]


April 30, 1999

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

Sandford J. Hillsberg, Esq.
Troy & Gould
1801 Company Park East # 1600
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2318

     Re   Amendment to Agreement between Intellicell Corporation and Ben Neman 
          dated April 21, 1999 (the "Agreement")

Dear Sandy:

     The Agreement is amended as follows:

     SECTION 4 and SECTION 5(a) of the Agreement are hereby amended to 
replace all references "200,000" with "146,764."

     Upon execution of each of the parties to the Agreement, this amendment 
shall be effective as of the first date of this Agreement.


                                             Sincerely,

                                             /s/ Howard J. Kern
                                             ------------------
                                             Howard J. Kern
                                             for Troop Steuber, Pasich
                                             Reddick & Tobey, LLP

     cc:  Ben Neman
          David Kane

<PAGE>

  [LOGO]  Sandford J. Hillsberg
          April 30, 1999
          Page 2


     Agreed and accepted as of April 21, 1999.

          Intellicell Corp.



          By: _______________

          Its:_______________


          ___________________
          Ben Neman
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable Marcia S. Krieger

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02514-MSK-CBS

MERLE A. FREY,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVID W. TURNER; and

K&B TRANSPORTATION, INC.,

Defendants.

ORDER REGARDING CUSTODY OF EXHIBITS AND DEPOSITIONS USED IN

EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS AND TRIALS

IT IS ORDERED that, as to any exhibits and depositions used during evidentiary

hearings or trials, counsel for the parties shall retrieve the originals of such exhibits and

depositions from the Court following the evidentiary hearing or trial, and shall retain same for 60

days beyond the later of the time to appeal or conclusion of any appellate proceedings. The

Court will retain its copy of the exhibits for the same time period after which the documents will

be destroyed.

Case 1:11-cv-02514-MSK-CBS Document 3 Filed 09/28/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
DATED this 28th day of September, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02514-MSK-CBS Document 3 Filed 09/28/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

District Judge R. Brooke Jackson

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02552-RBJ

ALAN LEWIS,

Applicant,

v.

RICK THALER, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, and

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO,

Respondents.

SECOND ORDER TO PROVIDE STATE COURT RECORD AND ANSWER

On December 28, 2011, the Court entered an order instructing Respondent 

Attorney General of the State of Colorado1to file with the Clerk of the Court, in 

electronic format if available, a copy of the complete record of Mr. Lewis’s state court 

proceedings in Case No. 00CR23, including all documents in the state court file and 

transcripts of all proceedings conducted in the state court, but excluding any physical 

evidence (as opposed to documentary evidence) not relevant to the asserted claims. 

Respondent was directed to submit the record within thirty days of the December 28 

Order. Copies of the December 28 Order were sent to the Clerk of the Court for 

Morgan County District Court and the Court Services Manager. 

On January 24, 2012, Respondent Attorney General submitted a Notice to the 

Court indicating that the record currently was in the possession of the Colorado Court of 

Appeals and would be provided to the Court within a month. As of the date of this 

 

1

 Respondent Rick Thaler is not required to file an Answer in this action.

Case 1:11-cv-02552-RBJ Document 24 Filed 08/16/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
Order, the Court has not received the state court record and Respondent has not filed 

an Answer. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Within twenty-one days from the date of this order Respondent Attorney 

General of the State of Colorado shall file with the Clerk of the Court, in electronic 

format if available, a copy of the complete record of Applicant’s state court proceedings 

in Morgan County District Court case number 00CR23, including all documents in the 

state court file and transcripts of all proceedings conducted in the state court, but 

excluding any physical evidence (as opposed to documentary evidence) not relevant to 

the asserted claims;

 (2) Within twenty-one days from the date the state court record is provided to 

the Court Respondent Attorney General of the State of Colorado shall file an Answer

conforming to the requirements of Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in 

the United States District Courts;

(3) Within twenty-one days of the filing of the Answer Applicant may file a 

Reply, if he desires.

Dated: August 16, 2012 at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

 

R. Brooke Jackson

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02552-RBJ Document 24 Filed 08/16/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6576

MICHAEL MCEVILY, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (2:07-cv-00594-RBS-JEB) Submitted: June 26, 2008 Decided: July 3, 2008 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael McEvily, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Michael McEvily seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McEvily 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
##### 



Exhibit 23.1 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM Board of Directors
Giga-tronics Incorporated
San Ramon, California We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on (Nos. 333-45476,
333-34719, 333-39403 and 333-69688 on Form S-8) of Giga-tronics Incorporated of our report dated
June 2, 2005, relating to the consolidated balance sheet of Giga-tronics Incorporated and
subsidiaries as of March 26, 2005, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
shareholders equity, and cash flows for the year then ended, which report appears elsewhere in
this Form 10-KSB. /s/     Perry-Smith LLPPerry-Smith, LLP Sacramento, California
June 13, 2005 46
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 23.2


                           Independent Auditors' Consent



The Board of Directors
Ciprico Inc.:

     We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(No. 33-47840, 33-78116, 33-64999, 33-65001, 333-02931, 333-02933, 333-428241,
333-42843 and 333-42845) on Form S-8 of Ciprico Inc of our report dated November
6, 1996, relating to the  consolidated statements of income, shareholders'
equity, and cash flows for the year ended September 30, 1996, which report
appears in the September 30, 1998 Annual Report of Ciprico Inc.



/s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Minneapolis, Minnesota
December 11, 1998
Exhibit 32.1

TAYLOR CAPITAL GROUP, INC.

Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906

of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Taylor Capital Group, Inc. (the Company) hereby certify
that:

(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008 (the
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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |  |  |                                        
|--------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------
|Dated: August 8, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ BRUCE W. TAYLOR                    
|                      |  |  |  | Bruce W. Taylor Chief Executive
Officer
|                      |  | 
|Dated: August 8, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ ROBIN VANCASTLE                    
|                      |  |  |  | Robin VanCastle Chief Financial
Officer
#### GARCIA v. FETHKE.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January Term 1954.

Certiorari dismissed without opinion.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Christine M. Arguello

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02372-CMA-KLM

K-BEECH, INC.

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE,

Defendant.

ORDER REASSIGNING MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the Court sua sponte. In light of transfer of related cases

to the undersigned, which was approved by Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Order of Reference to United States Magistrate Judge filed in

this action on September 13, 2011 (Doc. # 5) is hereby modified to reassign this case

from Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. 

All further filing in this action shall be docketed under Civil Action No. 11-cv-02372-

CMA-MJW.

DATED: October 04 , 2011

BY THE COURT:

_______________________________

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02372-CMA-MJW Document 9 Filed 10/04/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of First National Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2007, I, M. Shane Bell, Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of First National Corporation, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:



|(1) | such Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, 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 such Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of First National Corporation.
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                                                     
|-------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|                     |  | /s/ M. Shane Bell                                   
|Date: March 28, 2008 |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



72
<PAGE>
 
                                   EXHIBIT 24
<PAGE>
 
                               POWER OF ATTORNEY


     We, the undersigned directors of the Registrant, hereby severally
constitute and appoint Steven K. Colliatie our true and lawful attorney and
agent, to do any and all things in our names in the capacities indicated below
which said person may deem necessary or advisable to enable the Registrant to
comply with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and any rules,
regulations and requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission, in
connection with the annual report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31,
1998, including specifically, but not limited to, power and authority to sign
for us in our names in the capacities indicated below the annual report and any
amendments thereto; and we hereby approve, ratify and confirm all that said
person shall do or cause to be done by virtue thereof.



------------------------------------------
Joan H. Schonholtz
Director

------------------------------------------
Abbey J. Butler
Director


/s/ Melvin J. Estrin
------------------------------------------
March 25, 1999
Melvyn J. Estrin
Chairman of the Board, Director



/s/ Avis Y. Pointer
------------------------------------------
March 25, 1999
Avis Y. Pointer
Director