alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-60095 Conference Calendar

JAMES T. GRUBBS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus LLOYD JONES, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:94-CV-238-LN

- - - - - - - - - - August 22, 1996 Before KING, DUHÉ, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * James T. Grubbs, #A84404, appeals the dismissal of his civil rights complaint against the late Sheriff Lloyd C. Jones of Simpson County, Mississippi. Grubbs moves to join new defendants and to amend his complaint. Grubbs does not discuss whether the district court erred by dismissing his complaint pursuant to F ED . R. C IV . P. 25(a) for failure to substitute new defendants withinNo. 96-60095 - 2 - 90 days of suggestion of Jones’s death; Grubbs consequently has failed to brief the relevant issue for appeal. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). This appeal is frivolous. We caution Grubbs that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Grubbs is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous. Finally, Grubbs’s motion to join new defendants is DENIED; his motion to amend his complaint also is DENIED. APPEAL DISMISSED. 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED. MOTIONS DENIED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02708-WYD-KLM

USA,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY D. BERRYMAN,

THE TEMPLE OF THE UNVEILED GOD, and

THE OFFICE OF THE OVERSEER OF DEDICATION TO ENLIGHTENMENT, and her

successors, a corporation sole,

Defendants.

_____________________________________________________________________

MINUTE ORDER

_____________________________________________________________________

ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Nancy D. Berryman’s “Take Judicial

Notice Petition to Correct & Amend Court Jurisdiction and Venue Fraud Upon the

Court” [Docket No. 18; Filed December 28, 2011], filed by the Clerk’s Office as a Motion.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A. and 7.1H. Although Defendant Berryman proceeds

pro se, she is obligated to comply with the federal and local rules that govern all litigants

proceeding in this District. See Nielson v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994). The

Court directs Defendant Berryman to the information (including access to the federal and

local rules) available on the District’s website at:

http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/RepresentingYourself.aspx

Any future motion filed by Defendant Berryman must comply with federal and local

rules, including the duty to confer pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A. Defendant Berryman

must also state a clear request for relief in any future motion, and must provide coherent

factual allegations and relevant legal authority in support of her request.

The Court notes that subject matter jurisdiction over this lawsuit is proper pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (governing federal question jurisdiction) and 26 U.S.C. § 7403

(providing the authority to the United States to file a civil action to enforce a tax lien).

Dated: December 29, 2011

Case 1:11-cv-02708-WYD-KLM Document 20 Filed 12/29/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

No. 98-4829

VERA VERONICA ELLIOTT, a/k/a B.B.,

a/k/a Sealed Deft. 5,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.

James C. Fox, District Judge.

(CR-98-37)

Submitted: September 30, 1999

Decided: October 19, 1999

Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

David H. Rogers, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Janice

McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant

United States Attorney, John Howarth Bennett, Assistant United

States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Vera Veronica Elliott appeals her conviction and sentence for conspiring to distribute and to possess with the intent to distribute crack

cocaine, powder cocaine, heroin, and marijuana in violation of 21

U.S.C.A. 846 (West Supp. 1999). Elliott's only claim on appeal is

that she received ineffective assistance of counsel. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are generally not cognizable on direct

appeal. See United States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997).

Rather, such a claim must be brought in a motion under 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 2255 (West Supp. 1999), to allow for adequate development of the

record. See United States v. Hoyle, 33 F.3d 415, 418 (4th Cir. 1994).

A claim may be brought, however, when the record conclusively

establishes ineffective assistance. See King, 119 F.3d at 295. The

review of the record in this appeal does not conclusively establish

ineffective assistance. Accordingly, we affirm Elliot's conviction and

sentence. 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

 2
* Pursuant to Local 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-30346 Summary Calendar

LEDIA BROUSSARD, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CV-305

- - - - - - - - - - December 31, 1996 Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Ledia Broussard appeals from the district court’s judgment affirming the denial of his application for supplemental security income. He argues that substantial evidence did not exist to support the finding that his physical impairment was not severe and that he is not disabled. He also argues that the administrative law judge failed to assess properly his ability toNo. 96-30346 - 2 - perform jobs cited by the vocational expert. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED for essentially the reasons stated by the magistrate judge and adopted by the district court.
AFFIRMED.
| Skip to Content*Release Date: September 19, 2006*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**F.125 Agency- and GSE-backed Mortgage Pools1** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. STATE of Florida ex rel. S. F. BANON, Defendant in Error.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. Term, 1936.

Archie Clement, of Tarpon Springs, for plaintiffs in error.

H. S. Baynard, of St. Petersburg, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

Writ of error dismissed on motion of counsel for the respective parties.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         133,880
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,278,158
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     60,285
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,508,486
<PP&E>                                       3,880,692
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,031,397
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,954,508
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          263,479
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,813,248
<OTHER-SE>                                   (122,218)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,954,508
<SALES>                                      1,133,011
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,622,935
<CGS>                                        2,122,867
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               618,632
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,555
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                888,394
<INCOME-TAX>                                    58,720
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   829,674
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### L. F. POPELL CO., Inc., Debtor, Appellant, v. DELTA AIRLINES, INC., and J. Thomas Callahan Advertising Inc., Appellees.

No. 421, Docket 28453.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued Sept. 18, 1963.

Decided Sept. 18, 1963.

Edmund C. Grainger, Jr., New York City (O’Brien, Driscoll & Raftery, New York City, of counsel), for debtor-appellant.

Chauncey H. Levy, New York City (Levy, Levy & Ruback), New York City, for Unofficial Creditors’ Committee.

Morton L. Ginsberg, New York City (Elliott L. Krause and Krause, Hirsch, Gross & Heilpern, New York City, of counsel), for creditors-appellees.

Before FRIENDLY, KAUFMAN and MARSHALL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The debtor, L. F. Popell Co., Inc., a Florida corporation, has moved for a stay pending determination of its appeal from an order of the District Court for the Southern District of New York which, pursuant to § 32(b) of the Bankruptcy Act, transferred a proceeding under Chapter XI of that Act, begun by the debtor in that district, to the Southern District of Florida where, as the court found, the debtor has its principal place of business.1 The creditors who sought the transfer have cross-moved to dismiss the appeal as frivolous; a creditors’ committee has joined the debtor in objecting to transfer.

*51If the appeal had probable merit, the ease would be one where a stay ought be granted. But we are convinced it has none, for the reasons stated in Judge Feinberg’s opinion in the District Court. The Southern District of New York was not a district where the debtor had its principal place of business, resided or had its domicile, as provided in § 2 a(l); assuming that the provisions of § 32 are sufficient to have allowed retention, the judge in no way abused his discretion in finding that the interests of the parties would not be “best served” thereby. Accordingly we affirm the order of transfer and thereby render both motions moot.

Affirmed. The mandate will issue forthwith.

1

. In contrast to transfer orders under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) and 1406(a), the order here Is appealable since § 24(a) of the Bankruptcy Act includes interlocutory orders in “proceedings in bankruptcy.” In re Flexton Corp., 208 F.2d 869 (2 Cir. 1953).
Exhibit 32.2





Certification of Principal Financial Officer


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002











I, Glen R. Charles, Chief Financial Officer of CVD Equipment Corporation, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge, the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011 of CVD Equipment Corporation (the “Form 10-Q") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of CVD Equipment Corporation.








Dated: May 10, 2011
/s/   Glen R. CharlesGlen R. CharlesChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
Case 1:11-cv-02552-RBJ Document 5 Filed 10/12/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02552-RBJ Document 5 Filed 10/12/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02552-RBJ Document 5 Filed 10/12/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02552-RBJ Document 5 Filed 10/12/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6231

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GERALD DAMONE HOPPER, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Thomas A. Wiseman, Jr., District Judge. (CR-95-119-1, CA-96-217-3) Submitted: September 30, 1999 Decided: October 13, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerald Damone Hopper, Appellant Pro Se. Robert James Conrad, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Gerald Damone Hopper seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Hopper, Nos. CR-95-119-1; CA-96-217-3 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 8, 1999). In addition, wenote that Hopper’s claims that his counsel provided him with ineffective assistance on appeal are meritless. See McKaskle v. Wiggins , 465 U.S. 168, 183 (1984); see also United States v. Gillis , 773 F.2d 549, 559 (4th Cir. 1985). We therefore deny Hopper’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, to appoint counsel, to supplement the record, and to publish this opinion. We also deny Hopper’s motion for 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
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1211 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to provide enhanced penalties for 

marketing controlled substances to minors. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 25, 2007 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. GRASSLEY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to provide enhanced 

penalties for marketing controlled substances to minors. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Saving Kids from Dan5 gerous Drugs Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SENTENCING ENHANCEMENTS FOR MARKETING 

7 CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES TO MINORS. 

8 Section 418 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 

9 U.S.C. 859) is amended— 


bajohnson on PRODPC74 with BILLS
2 

•S 1211 IS

1 (1) in the section heading, by adding at the end 

2 the following: ‘‘; MARKETING TO MINORS’’; 

3 (2) in subsection (a), by inserting after ‘‘twen4 ty-one years of age’’ the following: ‘‘, or who manu5 factures, creates, distributes, or possesses with in6 tent to distribute a controlled substance that is fla7 vored, colored, packaged, or otherwise altered in a 

8 way that is designed to make that controlled sub9 stance more appealing to a person under twenty-one 

10 years of age, or who attempts or conspires to do 

11 so,’’; and 

12 (3) in subsection (b), by inserting after ‘‘twen13 ty-one years of age’’ the following: ‘‘, or who manu14 factures, creates, distributes, or possesses with in15 tent to distribute a controlled substance that is fla16 vored, colored, packaged, or otherwise altered in a 

17 way that is designed to make that controlled sub18 stance more appealing to a person under twenty-one 

19 years of age, or who attempts or conspires to do 

20 so,’’. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PRODPC74 with BILLS
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1

[BOLDER TECH LETTERHEAD]


                               DANIEL S. LANKFORD
                     Y2000 TRANSITION EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

o    Lankford becomes a part time employee effective January 1, 2000 with no
     benefits
o    Remains on the Board indefinitely
o    Will work and be paid for a minimum of 10 days per month through March 31,
     and 5 days per month through June 30.
o    May work additional days at the request of Roger Warren
o    Pay for days worked will be at the rate of $2,000 per day.
o    Stock options granted January 29, 1998 at $9.00 will vest during the period
     January 1, 2000 through June 30, 2000 at the rate of 4,000 shares per
     month, or a total of 24,000 shares.
o    Lankford will be eligible for normal 1999 cash and stock bonus
o    Will be paid for accrued vacation and personal time off as of the end of
     full time employment.
o    Part time employment agreement may be terminated by either party with 30
     days notice.
o    If terminated by Lankford, he foregoes further vesting after termination
     and must exercise all outstanding options within 90 days of termination
o    If terminated by BOLDER, unvested portion of 24,000 shares described above
     vests on termination and stock option expiration as described below
     applies.
o    Stock Options Expire as Follows:
     o    90 days after end of part time employment:
          o    133,333 shares grant July 11, 1994 at $0.375
          o    21,150 shares grant June 8, 1995 at $1.50
     o    180 days after end of part time employment:
          o    21,166 shares grant February 7, 1996 at $6.00
     o    90 days after ceasing to be a director of the Company all remaining
          shares must be exercised


December 16, 1999                          /s/ Daniel S. Lankford
--------------------------                 -------------------------------
Date                                       Daniel S. Lankford
                                           Chairman of the Board


                                           /s/ Roger F. Warren
                                           -------------------------------
                                           Roger F. Warren
                                           President and CEO
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT DANIEL SAUNDERS, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-3566 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed March 20, 2019. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Highlands County; Peter F. Estrada, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Ransone v. State, 48 So. 3d 692 (Fla. 2010).

NORTHCUTT, SALARIO, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM,JJ., Concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6726

TERRY MICHAEL WILMORE,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL MCCALL, Warden,

Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District 

Judge. (3:11-cv-00408-JFA)

Submitted: August 17, 2011 Decided: August 24, 2011

Before KING, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terry Michael Wilmore, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Terry Michael Wilmore seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as 

successive. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction 

because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. 

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of 

the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends 

the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the 

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely 

filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional 

requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket 

on April 13, 2011. The notice of appeal can be deemed filed, at 

the earliest, on May 24, 2011.*

 * For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date 

appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could 

have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to 

the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 

(1988).

Because Wilmore failed to file a 

timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening 

of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 
3

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 99.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



I, Gregory A. Wells, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

To the best of my knowledge and belief, the annual report on Form 10-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2003, by NTS-Properties IV and to which
this certification is appended (the "Periodic Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Periodic Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of NTS-
Properties IV.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
NTS-Properties IV and will be retained by NTS-Properties IV and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

|/s/ Gregory A. Wells                               
|---------------------------------------------------
|                                                   
|Chief Financial Officer of NTS Capital Corporation,
|General Partner of NTS-Properties Associates IV,   
|General Partner of NTS-Properties IV