alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

APR 8 1999

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

HEULON L. PERRIN, JR., also

known as Heulon Perrin, Jr.,

Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 98-1389

v. D. Colorado

CITIES OF DENVER, BOULDER,

AND LAKEWOOD, COLORADO,

Defendants - Appellees,

DENVER MAYOR WEBB, AND

BOULDER MAYOR BOB GREENEE,

Defendants.

(D.C. No. 98-D-1627)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before ANDERSON , KELLY , and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.
-2-

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34 (a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This cause is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

The district court dismissed Heulon L. Perrin, Jr.’s civil rights suit, without

prejudice to his ability to refile if he complied with the rules of the court,

including filing sanctions imposed on Mr. Perrin by the district court on

September 10, 1991. The court did not err in dismissing this case without

prejudice.

Mr. Perrin’s motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of costs or

fees is DENIED, and this appeal is DISMISSED on the grounds that it is

frivolous.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Stephen H. Anderson

Circuit Judge
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2295

MILTON L. YOUMANS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MANNA INCORPORATED, of the Low Country, d/b/a Wendys Restaurant, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-97-2608-2-18AJ) Submitted: November 5, 1998 Decided: November 18, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Milton L. Youmans, Appellant Pro Se. George Trenholm Walker, SeanKevin Trundy, PRATT-THOMAS, PEARCE, EPTING & WALKER, P.A., Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Milton L. Youmans appeals the district court’s order granting the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment in Youmans’ Title VII action alleging racial and gender discrimination. We have reviewedthe record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Youmans v. Manna Inc. , No. CA-97-2608-2-18AJ (D.S.C. July 16, 1998). 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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6774

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SOLOMON GLOVER, a/k/a Terry Tyreil Moore, a/k/a Box, a/k/a 

Tyreil Moore, a/k/a Tyreil Morgan,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, 

District Judge. (2:03-cr-00039-AWA-FBS-1; 2:13-cv-00203-AWA)

Submitted: September 26, 2013 Decided: October 3, 2013

Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Solomon Glover, Appellant Pro Se. William David Muhr, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia; Timothy Richard 

Murphy, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Solomon Glover seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2006) motion. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)

(2006). 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) (2006). 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 motion 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 Glover has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny his motion to proceed 

in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 23.3



CONSENT OF REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



In connection with the foregoing Annual Report on Form 10-KSB to be filed with the Washington, D.C. Office of the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, we hereby consent to the inclusion of our report dated April 1, 2005 related to the audit of the financial statements of VCG Holdings Corp. as of and for the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2004.



|                 |  |                               
|---------------- |  | ------------------------------
|Denver, Colorado |  | /s/ CAUSEY DEMGEN & MOORE INC.
|April 15, 2005   |  |
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of DCB Financial Corp (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey Benton,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as enacted 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/ Jeffrey Benton

Jeffrey Benton
President and Chief Executive Officer
May 12, 2003





                                      22
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this registration statement of
Peak International Limited (the "Company") on Form S-8 of our report dated April
28, 2000 (August 4, 2000 as to notes 5 and 11(c)) appearing in the Annual Report
on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended March 31, 2000.


/s/ Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
DELOITTE TOUCHE TOHMATSU
Hong Kong, December 15, 2000
#### Mack LEWIS et al., Appellants, v. Jack TRIMBLE, Individual et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 31, 1974.

Joe Hobson, Prestonsburg, for appellants.

Clifford B. Latta, Prestonsburg, for appellees.

Memorandum Opinion of the Court by

Justice PALMORE,

Affirming.*
Exhibit 32.1


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Zond-PanAero Windsystem Partners I, a
California Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the three
months ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Eric D. Gadd, Chief Executive Officer of
Zond Windsystems Management LLC, as General Partner of the Partnership, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, 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 Partnership for the three months ended June 30, 2004.


Date: August 13, 2004
                                            /s/ ERIC D. GADD
                                            ------------------------------
                                            Eric D. Gadd
                                            Chief Executive Officer
                                            Zond Windsystems Management LLC, as
                                            General Partner of Zond-PanAero
                                            Windsystem Partners I, a
                                            California Limited Partnership
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                      ----------------------------------


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-83495 and 333-92759) of Tut Systems, Inc. of
our report dated March 26, 2001, relating to the consolidated financial
statements and financial statement schedule, which appear in this Form 10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

San Jose, California
April 2, 2001
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

May 26, 2017

p0523 

# Order

Clerk May 26, 2017

154814

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 154814

COA: 327491

Wayne CC: 14

- 004600

- FH

DARRELL WILDER, a/k/a DARRELL JOHN

WILDER, a/k/a DARRELL J. WILDER

, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 27, 2016

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered . We direct the Clerk to schedule oral

argument on whether to grant the application or take other action. MCR 7.305(H)(1).

The parties shall file supplemental brie fs within 42 days of the date of this order

addressing: (1) whether the trial court erred by allowing the prosecutor to cross

- examine

the defendant’s wife about his prior firearms

- related convictions; (2) whether the

prosecutor improperly raised a collat eral issue to admit evidence of the defendant’s prior

felonies through impeachment, compare People v Stanaway , 446 Mich 643 (1994), with

People v Kilbourn , 454 Mich 677 (1997); see also People v Vasher , 449 Mich 494

(1995); and (3) whether any error was harmless . The parties should not submit mere

restatements of their application papers.

The Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan and Criminal Defense

Attorneys of Michigan are invited to file briefs amic us curiae. Other persons or groups

interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court

for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00059

- CR

Gregg Wesley Macintosh

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From Criminal District Court No. 3

o f Tarrant County (1280735D )

March 20, 2014

Opinion by Chief Justice Livingston

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the tria l court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Terrie Livingston

C hief Justice Terrie Livingston
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         161,272
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               172,266
<PP&E>                                         153,979
<DEPRECIATION>                                (122,676)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 203,569
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          221,264
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,844
<COMMON>                                        23,775
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   203,569
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  391,017
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              65,896
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (389,704)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (389,704)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (.02)



</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 169 (Wednesday, September 1, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 53722]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-21744]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application

    Pursuant to Sec.  1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on May 14, 2010, Chattem 
Chemicals Inc., 3801 St. Elmo Avenue, Building 18, Chattanooga, 
Tennessee 37409, made application to the Drug Enforcement 
Administration (DEA) as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of 
controlled substances listed in schedule II:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phenylacetone (8501).......................  II
Raw Opium (9600)...........................  II
Concentrate of Poppy Straw (9670)..........  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances 
in bulk for distribution to its customers.
    Any other such applicant, and any person who is presently 
registered with DEA to manufacture such substances, may file comments 
or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 
21 CFR 1301.33(a).
    Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in 
quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of 
Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL),8701 
Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and must be filed no 
later than November 1, 2010.

    Dated: August 13, 2010.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-21744 Filed 8-31-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. CARLOS RODRIGUEZ, AKA Face, AKA Seal P, Defendant - Appellant. No. 12-50512 D.C. No. 2:07-cr-01079-DSF-16

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted June 3, 2014 Pasadena, California Before: TROTT and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and BENNETT, District Judge. *** A jury convicted appellant Carlos Rodr iguez of conspiracy to distribute at least five-hundred grams of methamphetamine mixture or at least fifty grams of 

# FILED

JUN 26 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
*** The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, Di strict Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.pure methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(viii). After we reversed the jury’s methamphe tamine quantity finding, United States v. Maciel , 461 Fed. App’x 610, 615–16 (9th Cir. 2011), the district court made the quantity determination anew and found R odriguez responsible for approximately seventy grams of methamphetamine mixture with a purity of forty-two percent. That finding put Rodriguez at base offe nse level twenty-eight and a Sentencing Guidelines range of 140 to 175 months. Taking into account Rodriguez’s criminal history and the danger he posed to the community, the district court sentenced Rodriguez to 188 months. Rodriguez now asks us (1) to vacat e and remand his sentence because the district court’s quantity determination was clearly erroneous, and (2) to strike the condition of his supervised release forbidding him from associating with “persons associated with the F-13 gang” as unconstitutionally vague. We affirm Rodriguez’s sentence, but remand to the di strict court to strike the clause “or persons associated with the F-13 gang” from Rodriguez’s conditions of supervised release. The government concedes that the clause “or persons associated with the F13 gang” in Rodriguez’s conditions of supervised release is unconstitutionally

2vague. See United States v. Johnson , 626 F.3d 1085, 1091 (9th Cir. 2010). On remand, the district court shall revise condition nine accordingly. We conclude that the district court’s thoughtful and careful use of comparator evidence se ized from Rodriguez’s suppliers to calculate the purity and thus the quantity of the methamphetamine involved in the conspiracy possessed “sufficient indicia of reliability to suppor t its probable accuracy.” United States v. Forrester , 616 F.3d 929, 949 (9th Cir. 2010); accord United States v. LopesMontes , 165 F.3d 730, 731–32 (9th Cir. 1998). Moreover, the district court exercised appropriate caution and gave th e defendant the benefit of the doubt in using forty-two percent purity instead of ninety-eight percent -- as urged by the government -- as a starting point. See id. AFFIRMED in part and REMANDE D for further proceedings.

3
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Martha L. Long, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Consolidated Capital Institutional Properties/3;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:



(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  November 13, 2007

/s/Martha L. Long

Martha L. Long

Senior Vice President of ConCap Equities, Inc., equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership