alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-60197

Summary Calendar

AUDREY DENISE ROBERTSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

MINNIE COLEMAN, Lieutenant; WARDEN KEVIN JACKSON,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:10-CV-98

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Proceeding pro se, Audrey Denise Robertson, Mississippi prisoner

# K9439, appeals the dismissal of her complaint against prison officials for

harassment. After Robertson and the Government consented to proceeding

before the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the magistrate judge

determined that Robertson failed to exhaust administrative remedies and to

allege a constitutional violation. The magistrate judge dismissed her suit as

frivolous.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 22, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 11-60197 Document: 00511797348 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/22/2012
No. 11-60197

Robertson’s brief describes the alleged harassment, notes that the district

court did not call certain witnesses to testify, and asserts that she did not receive

the defendants’ motion to dismiss and was not instructed to answer it. She does

not discuss whether she exhausted her claims or whether the defendants’ actions

amounted to a constitutional violation. She also fails to cite to the district court

record. 

The appellant’s brief must contain her “contentions and the reasons for

them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which [she]

relies.” FED. R. APP.P. 28(a)(9)(A). Although we liberally construe pro se briefs,

arguments must be briefed sufficiently to be preserved. Yohey v. Collins,

985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Robertson’s failure to address the

magistrate judge’s grounds for dismissing her claims,“without even the slightest

identification of any error in [the district court’s] legal analysis or its application

to [her] suit . . ., is the same as if [s]he had not appealed that judgment.” 

Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.

1987). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See id.; 5TH

CIR. R. 42.2. 

Both the dismissal of Robertson’s suit in the district court and the

dismissal of this appeal count as strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See

Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). Robertson is

WARNED that, once she accumulates three strikes, she may not proceed in

forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while she is incarcerated or

detained in any facility unless she is under imminent danger of serious physical

injury. See § 1915(g). 

2

Case: 11-60197 Document: 00511797348 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/22/2012
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of OmniComm Systems, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned, being, Ronald T. Linares, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                   
|-------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Ronald T. Linares                                              
|Ronald T. Linares                                                  
|Executive Vice President and Chief Accounting and Financial Officer

March 31, 2008
#### John T. O. BEELER, Appellant, v. Sherman H. CROUSE, Warden, Kansas State Penitentiary, Lansing, Kansas, Appellee.

No. 7614.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

June 5, 1964.

L. William Schmidt, Jr., Denver, Colo., for appellant.

Robert J. Lewis, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. of Kansas, Topeka, Kan. (William M. Ferguson, Atty. Gen., and Arthur E. Palmer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Topeka, Kan., on the brief), for appellee.

Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and PICKETT and LEWIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

John T. O. Beeler is confined in the Kansas State Penitentiary at Lansing, Kansas, where is he serving a sentence of not less than ten years nor more than twenty-one years for first degree robbery. His petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleged that he is unlawfully held because his plea of guilty upon which he was sentenced was obtained through threats, coercion and physical abuse. This is an appeal from a judgment denying the writ and remanding the prisoner to the custody of the respondent warden.

The petitioner was present at the hearing on the petition and testified that when he was arrested after trying to avoid officers, one of them struck him on the neck with a pistol. He also testified that after being taken to the police headquarters at Kansas City, Kansas he was struck and threatened by officers, including his stepfather, who was a deputy sheriff. There was testimony by other witnesses that when he was later observed his face was swollen. The officers testified that petitioner was not threatened or abused in any manner except by his step-father and that this occurred after the petitioner had admitted his part in a robbery. The officers who were present testified that when the step-father appeared he cursed petitioner and struck him several times about the face with his open hand, and that he was immediately restrained and removed from the room. Beeler admitted that he did not advise his attorney about this alleged abuse when arraigned, nor did he advise the court that his plea of guilty was the result of mistreatment.

Habeas corpus is a civil proceeding and the burden is upon the petitioner to show by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to relief. Teague v. Looney, 10 Cir., 268 F.2d 506, and cases cited.

 Findings of the trial court upon conflicting evidence will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous. Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 52(a); Devins v. *784Crouse, 10 Cir., 319 F.2d 62; Raisin v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 167 F.2d 742. The evidence presented at the hearing before the trial court sufficiently supports the findings.

Other assignments of error have been considered and found to be without merit.

Affirmed.
#### STATE ex rel. Charles G. RODGERS v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-0213.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 4, 2011.

In re Rodgers, Charles G.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 2006-11527; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Nos. 2008 CW 2021, 2009 CW 2087.

Writ granted. Because his eodefen-dant’s pretrial statement appears discoverable under the Public Records Law, see R.S. 44:31.1; see also La. Const. art. XII, section 3; R.S. 44.31; *Landis v. Moreau,*00-1157 (La.2/21/01), 779 So.2d 691, the district court erred when it summarily denied relator’s application for a writ of mandamus seeking production of the document. Absent an affirmative showing at a contradictory hearing in the district court that relator is not entitled to the material, the Slidell Police Department is ordered to provide relator with an estimate of the costs of reproducing the public, record(s) relator has requested. In all other respects, the application is denied.
NO. 07-09-0347-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

JANUARY 8, 2010

______________________________

CHARLIE E. BECKHAM, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 137TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

NO. 2003-402,627; HONORABLE CECIL PURYEAR, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a guilty plea in 2004, Appellant, Charlie E. Beckham, was placed on

deferred adjudication for aggravated assault. He was placed on community supervision

for two years. In 2006, pursuant to a guilty plea, Appellant was adjudicated guilty for

violations of the terms and conditions of community supervision and sentenced to five
2

years confinement, suspended in favor of five years community supervision. In January

2009, the State moved to revoke community supervision for multiple violations of the terms

and conditions thereof. Appellant entered a plea of not true to one of the State’s

allegations and true to the remaining allegations. The trial court revoked community

supervision and sentenced Appellant to five years confinement. 

Pending before this Court is Appellant’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal in which he

represents he wishes to withdraw his notice of appeal and dismiss the appeal. As required

by Rule 42.2(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the motion is signed by

Appellant and his attorney. No decision of this Court having been delivered, the motion

is granted and the appeal is dismissed. No motion for rehearing will be entertained and

our mandate will issue forthwith.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Patrick A. Pirtle

 Justice

Do not publish.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

MICHAEL BUNCE,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D22-95

LT Case No. 2021-CF-017943-AX

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Decision filed August 2, 2022

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Brevard County,

Tesha Scolaro Ballou, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Andrew 

Mich, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, 

for Appellant. 

Michael Bunce, Cocoa, pro se. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, 

and Robin A. Compton, Assistant Attorney 

General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LAMBERT, C.J., WALLIS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1

 

	

Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer 

Pursuant to Section 906 

of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

 

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Tripos, Inc. (the "Company"), each hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:

(a)	the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the Quarter Ended September 30, 2003 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

(b)	information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  

 

 

	/s/ John P. McAlister
	John P. McAlister

	Chief Executive Officer

	November 12, 2003

 

	/s/ B. James Rubin
	B. James Rubin

	Chief Financial Officer

	November 12, 2003
Exhibit 10.9

Compensation Arrangement for Gordon McGilton
as approved by the Board of Directors
of Force Protection, Inc.

Excerpts
from Force Protection, Inc. Board Minutes, dated January 13, 2006:

RESOLVED,that effective as from January 1, 2006 the compensation of Mr. McGilton as Chief Executive Officer of the Company
shall include:



Excerpts
from Force Protection, Inc. Board Minutes, dated October 25, 2006:

RESOLVED,as per the recommendation of the Compensation Committee, and based upon the information reviewed, that the 2007 Compensation for
Gordon McGilton as CEO will increase effective January 1, 2007, by $5,000 per month;

FURTHER RESOLVEDadditionally the Company will issue an option grant of 500,000 shares of common stock with a 5 year exercise
period, registered under an S8, at a strike price as of market close on October 31, 2006. The options will vest 25% per quarter, on the final day of each calendar quarter in 2007 while
Mr. McGilton remains employed in the capacity of CEO and/or Executive Chairman.

---



QuickLinks
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHBIT 3.3
                              ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT
                                       OF
                            ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                       ANCOR COMMUNICATIONS, INCORPORATED


1.   The name of the corporation is Ancor Communications, Incorporated, a
     Minnesota corporation.

2.   The amendment adopted is:

          SECTION 1 OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE COMPANY'S SECOND RESTATED ARTICLES OF
          INCORPORATION IS HEREBY AMENDED TO READ IN ITS ENTIRETY AS FOLLOWS:

          1.   AUTHORIZED SHARES.

               THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SHARES OF CAPITAL STOCK WHICH THE CORPORATION
               IS AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE SHALL BE 45,000,000 SHARES, CONSISTING OF
               40,000,000 SHARES OF COMMON STOCK, PAR VALUE $.01 PER SHARE
               ("COMMON STOCK"), AND 5,000,000 SHARES OF PREFERRED STOCK, $.01
               PAR VALUE PER SHARE ("PREFERRED STOCK").

3.   The amendment has been adopted pursuant to Chapter 302A of the Minnesota
     Business Corporation Act.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, Kenneth E. Hendrickson, Chief
Executive Officer and Chairman of Ancor Communications, Incorporated, being duly
authorized on behalf of Ancor Communications, Incorporated, has executed this
document this 10th day of August, 1998.


                                       /s/ Kenneth E. Hendrickson
                                       ------------------------------------
                                       Kenneth E. Hendrickson
                                       Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to
the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-3 No. 333-146254, and Form S-8 Nos. 333-64609, 333-94933 and 333-86818) of our report dated May 31, 2011, relating to the consolidated financial statements of
Meade Instruments Corp., which report expresses an unqualified opinion, appearing in this Annual Report (Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-K) for the year ended February 28, 2011.



|                  
|------------------
|/s/ Moss Adams LLP
|Irvine, California
|March 2, 2012
#### Champion Machine Co. v. Ervay Bros.

(No. 6271.)

Appeal from Dallas County.

Beeves & Chowning-, counsel for appellant.

McCormick & Spence, counsel for appellees.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 136. *Contract; clear, certain and distinct, not liable to modification by custom.*This suit was instituted in justice’s court by appellees to recover of appellant *$116.07,*amount of freight charges, etc., paid by appellees on certain freight shipped to them by appellant to be sold under a written contract of agency. Appellees recovered judgment in justice’s court, and also in county court, for the amount sued for, and costs. It is stipulated in the contract of agency that appellees should pay freight charges on said freight, keep the same well stored, and keep the same insured for the benefit of appellant, and, upon settlement, should hold subject to the order of appellant, and free o£ expense, such of said property as remained in the hands of appellee unsold. We see no ambiguity in the contract. It is plainly expressed and stipulated therein that appellees were to pay the freight charges on the property: and there is nothing in the contract which, expressly or by implication, obligates appellant to reimburse appellees for the charges paid by them. We think the trial court erred in admitting evidence to prove a custom variant from the plain meaning of said stipulation in the contract. A clear, certain and distinct contract is not liable to modification by proof of custom. If a custom be inconsistent with the contract, or expressly, or by necessary implication, contradicts it, it is not admissible. [1 Wait, Act. & Def., pp. 128, 129, § 20.] The judgment is reversed, and, it not being necessary that any fact should be ascertained, judgment is *198here rendered for appellant against appellees *for*all costs in this suit incurred, and that appellees take nothing by their suit.

June 16, 1890.

Reversed and rendered.
EXHIBIT
32.1


Certification
Pursuant


to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350


As
Adopted Pursuant to


Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of Cenveo, Inc., a Colorado corporation (the ‘‘Company’’),
does hereby certify, to the best of such officer’s knowledge, that:









The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three month period ended March 28, 2009
(the ‘‘Form 10-Q’’) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information
contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Date:
July 30, 2009


/s/ RobertG.Burton,Sr.


Robert G.
Burton, Sr.


Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer





Date:
July 30, 2009


/s/ Kenneth
P. Viret


Kenneth
P. Viret


Chief
Financial Officer







A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to Cenveo, Inc. and will be retained by
Cenveo, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.





The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63
of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q
or as a separate disclosure document.
#### Rene VALDES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D11-1252.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 7, 2011.

Rene Valdes, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before RAMIREZ, SUAREZ, and SALTER, JJ.

SUAREZ, J.

This is an appeal of an order summarily denying a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. On appeal from a summary denial, this Court must reverse unless the post-conviction record, shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief. *See*Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(A), (D).

Valdes claims that he was not advised by the trial court of the deportation conse*995quences of his plea. The trial court’s order denying relief failed to address this claim. Because the record now before us fails to make the required showing, we reverse the order and remand for an evi-dentiary hearing or other appropriate relief. If the trial court again enters an order summarily denying the post-conviction motion, the court shall attach record excerpts1 conclusively showing that the appellant is not entitled to any relief.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

1

. The plea colloquy, for example.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Lynn BESS, III.

No. 2010-KO-2368.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 8, 2011.

In re Bess III, Lynn; —Defendant; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated February 25, 2011; Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 07-F3173; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,358-KA.

Denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

October 3, 2019

s0926 

# Order

Clerk October 3, 2019

159619

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 159619

COA: 340377

Macomb CC: 2016

- 000712

- FC

BRAD STEPHEN HAYNIE,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the Ap ril 16, 2019

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED, limited to the

issues: (1) whether assault and battery is a necessarily included offense of assault with

intent to commit murder; and if so (2) whether a rational view of the evidence in this case

could support a conviction for assault and battery. The time allowed for oral argument

shall be 20 minutes for each side. MCR 7.314(B)(1).

The Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan and the Criminal Defense

Attorneys of Mic higan are invited to file briefs amicus 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.
Exhibit 31.2





CERTIFICATION





I, Christopher P. Schnittker, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of Echo Therapeutics, Inc.; and





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.








/s/ Christopher P. Schnittker


Christopher P. Schnittker, C.P.A.


Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


(Principal Financial Officer)





May 1, 2014