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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-8019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ROBERT DEON HUNTER, SR., a/k/a Bob Hunter,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Richard L. Voorhees, 

District Judge. (1:06-cr-00251-MR-4; 1:09-cv-00297-LHT)

Submitted: March 16, 2010 Decided: March 23, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Deon Hunter, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Deon Hunter, Sr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 

(West Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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). 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 Hunter 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
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Quarterly Report of Northfield Laboratories Inc. on Form
10-Q for the period ended February 28, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jack J. Kogut, Chief
Financial Officer of Northfield Laboratories Inc., certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 that:

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

     (4)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of Northfield Laboratories Inc.

Date: April 10, 2006


/s/ Jack J. Kogut
-------------------------------------
Jack J. Kogut
Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Pehong Chen, the ChiefExecutive Officer of BroadVision, Inc. (the “Company”) and William E.Meyer, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify that, to thebest of their knowledge:

 

**1.****            **TheCompany’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,2005, and to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “PeriodicReport”), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

 

**2.****            **Theinformation contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have set theirhands hereto as of the 9th day of August 2005.

 

 
|   | /s/  Pehong Chen         |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | Pehong  Chen             |
|   | Chief  Executive Officer |
|   |                     |
|   | /s/  William E. Meyer    |   |
|   | William  E. Meyer        |
|   | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
#### In re Appeal of Decision of DISCIPLINARY BOARD NO. 10-PDB-061.

No. 2010-OB-2298.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 17, 2010.

In re White, Bradley; —Plaintiff; Applying For Appeal of Decision of the Disciplinary Board Office of Disciplinary Board, No. 10-PDB-061.

Leave to appeal denied.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, February 17, 2010, 11 a.m. to February 17, 2010, 2 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on January 26, 2010, 75 FR 4095.                

The meeting title has been changed to “Member Conflict: CDIN and CNN Member Applications I.” The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: January 28, 2010.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2010-2435 Filed 2-4-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Shannon MOORE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-4538.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 21, 2000.

Decided Jan. 11, 2001.

Michael A. Bragg, Abingdon, VA, for appellant. Robert P. Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, Rick A. Mountcastle, Assistant United States Attorney, Andrew Russell, Third-Year Law Student, Abing-don, VA, for appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Michael Shannon Moore appeals his seventy-eight-month sentence imposed after he pled guilty to five counts of mailing threatening communications, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 876 (West 2000). He contends that the district court should have grouped the offenses under *U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual*§ 3D1.2(c) (1998). Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

When considering the district court’s application of the guidelines, we review factual findings for clear error and legal interpretations de novo. *United States v. Colton,*231 F.3d 890, 911 (4th Cir.2000); *United States v. Daughtrey,*874 F.2d 213, 217 (4th Cir.1989) (noting that application of grouping principles in USSG § 3D1.2 moves closer to de novo review). The plain language of the commentary to USSG § 2A6.1 provides that “multiple counts involving making a threatening ... communication to the same victim are grouped together under § 3D1.2[,] ... [but][m]ultiple counts involving different victims are not to be grouped under § 3D1.2.” USSG § 2A6.1, comment, (n. 2). Because we “accept the Application Notes as authoritative unless they are inconsistent with the Constitution, a federal statute, or a plain reading of the Guidelines,” *198
      *United States v. Hams,*128 F.3d 850, 852 (4th Cir.1997) (citing *Stinson v. United States,*508 U.S. 36, 45, 113 S.Ct. 1913, 123 L.Ed.2d 598 (1993)), and because each of the counts to which Moore pled guilty involved a separate victim, we find that the district court properly declined to group the offenses. *See United States v. Achiekwelu,*112 F.3d 747, 755 (4th Cir.1997) ("We must follow the clear, unambiguous language of a particular guideline unless there is a manifestation of contrary intent.”).

Accordingly, we affirm Moore’s 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.*
#### Mo. Pac. R’y Co. v. Jeremiah Scott.

(No. 3033.)

Error from Bell County.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

*(Transferred from Austin.)*

§ 3 2 4. *Notice of damage; stipulation for, in carrier’s contract; verbal; waiver of.*Scott sued the railroad company for damages for loss and injury of beef cattle shipped by him over the railroad. There was a stipulation in the contract of shipment, that, as a condition precedent to his right to recover any damage for any loss or injury to said stock, he would give notice in writing of his claim therefor to some officer of the company, or its nearest station agent, before removing said stock from the place of destination, or the place of delivery to him, and before said stock should be mingled with other stock. He did not give any *written*notice of his claim for dam*280ages. He *verbally*notified'the superintendent of a stockyard, and the conductor of the train on which his cattle were transported, (of his claim for damages. The trial court held that such notice was sufficient, and gave judgment in his favor for damages. *Held:*The court erred in finding that a verbal notice by the plaintiff of his claim for damages to the parties named was a compliance with this stipulation in the contract. The fact that upon giving this verbal notice these parties told him to wait a reasonable time, and informed him that a member of the company would come and settle with him, did not amount to a waiver on the part of the company of such written notice. [W. & W. Con. Rep. §§ 374, 1257; *ante,*136, 137.] The contract not only bound him to give the notice in writing, but also that it should be given to *some officer of the road, or its nearest station agent.*If a verbal notice could, under any circumstances, effect a waiver of the written notice, it must have been given to an officer of the road, or its nearest station agent. A conductor of a train and a superintendent of stock-yards are merely employees, and not officers of the company. Had the verbal notice been given to an officer or station agent, and those parties had told the owner to wait a reasonable time, and that a member of the company would settle with him, we are not prepared to say that this would not have been tantamount to a waiver of the written notice.

October 18, 1884.

§ 325. *Proof of waiver of notice.*It is a general rule that the fact of waiver of notice may be established by proof of circumstances inconsistent with the right of the antecedent party to insist upon the observance of the conditions of his contract, as well as by express promise of such party. [Wade on Notice, § 940.] But in this case, the circumstances shown do not involve the parties to whom the notice should have been given.

Reversed and remanded.
#### Ruby FARLEY v. The CITY OF NEW ORLEANS.

No. 2011-CC-1265.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 23, 2011.

In re City of New Orleans; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs Office of Workers’ Compensation *1164District 8, No. 10-05143; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-C-0301.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**Certifications Under Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

John R. Lyon and Howard Sampsonhereby certify that:

 

1.               They are the ChiefExecutive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of Vista MedicalTechnologies Inc.

 

2.               TheForm 10-K/A report of Vista Medical Technologies Inc. that this certificationaccompanies fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934.

 

3.               Theinformation contained in the Form 10-K/A report of Vista Medical TechnologiesInc. that this certification accompanies fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of Vista MedicalTechnologies Inc.

 

Dated: September 29, 2004

 

 
| /s/ John R. Lyon    |   |
|---------------------|--------|
| **John R. Lyon**    |   |
|                |   |
|                |   |
| /s/ Howard  Sampson |   |
| **Howard  Sampson** |   |

 

----
Micro-Integration Corp. and Subsidiaries
         Exhibit 11.1 - Statement re: Computation of Earnings Per Share



                                         Three months ended    Nine months ended
                                            December 31           December 31
                                          1996      1995      1996       1995
                                        -------    -------   -------    -------
                                           (unaudited)           (unaudited)

Average shares outstanding                2,410      2,423     2,410      2,423

Net effect of dilutive stock options
 based on the treasury stock method
 using average market price                   0          0         0          0
                                        -------    -------   -------    -------

Total                                     2,410      2,423     2,410      2,423
                                        =======    =======   =======    =======

Net Loss                                $  (244)   $    15   $  (819)   $  (808)
                                        =======    =======   =======    =======

Per share amount                        $ (0.10)   $  0.01   $ (0.34)   $ (0.33)
                                        =======    =======   =======    =======

Note: Fully diluted earnings per share equals primary earnings per share.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                         5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from financial
statements for the year ended September 30, 1998 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                    SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                              536,000
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       418,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                         277,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1,260,000
<PP&E>                                            3,957,000<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    5,759,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1,530,000
<BONDS>                                           1,257,000<F3>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                             63,000
<OTHER-SE>                                        2,909,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      5,759,000
<SALES>                                           1,839,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  7,502,000
<CGS>                                             1,897,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  5,195,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  154,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (795,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (795,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (795,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (.12)

<FN>
<F1>  Notes and accounts receivable - trade are reported net of allowances for
      doubtful accounts in the Balance Sheet.

<F2>  Property, plant, and equipment are reported net of accumulated
      depreciation in the Balance Sheet.

<F3>  Excludes current portion
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
NUMBER 13-14-00661-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

ELIAS GAITAN, Appellant,

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 357th District Court

of Cameron County, Texas.

ORDER ABATING APPEAL

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza

Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court regarding the appellant’s failure to file a designation 

and make arrangements for preparation of the clerk’s record. On January 5, 2015, the 

Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the clerk’s record was originally due on January 

5, 2015, and that the deputy district clerk, Yvonne Calzada, had notified this Court that 

appellant failed to file a designation and make payment arrangements for preparation of 
2

the clerk’s record. Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten 

days from the date of receipt of the notice, the matter would be referred to the Court for 

appropriate action. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(a)(2). Appellant failed to respond to the 

Court’s notice. 

On January 8, 2015, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the reporter’s 

record was due on January 5, 2015, and that the court reporter, Cynthia L. Garza, had 

notified this Court that appellant had failed to request the reporter’s record and make 

arrangements for payment of the reporter’s record. 

This sequence of events requires us to effectuate our responsibility to avoid further 

delay and to preserve the parties' rights. See id. Accordingly, this appeal is ABATED 

and the cause REMANDED to the trial court.

Upon remand, the trial court shall utilize whatever means necessary to make 

appropriate findings and recommendations concerning the following: (1) whether 

appellant has abandoned his appeal; (2) whether his present attorney will diligently 

pursue the appeal; (3) if it be determined that the present attorney will not diligently pursue 

the appeal, whether appellant is indigent, and if so, whether other counsel should be 

appointed to represent him; (4) if appellant is not indigent and the present attorney will 

not diligently pursue the appeal, what steps need to be taken to ensure that appellant will 

promptly obtain the services of another attorney to pursue the appeal; and (5) if any other 

orders are necessary to ensure the proper and timely pursuit of appellant’s appeal. If 

new counsel is appointed, the name, address, telephone number, and state bar number 

of said counsel shall be included in an order appointing counsel.
3

The trial court shall cause its findings and recommendations, together with any 

orders it may enter regarding the aforementioned issues, to be included in a supplemental 

clerk's record. Furthermore, the trial court shall cause a supplemental reporter's record 

of any proceedings to be prepared. The supplemental clerk's record and supplemental 

reporter's record, if any, shall be filed with the Clerk of this Court within thirty days from 

the date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

12th day of February, 2015.
EXHIBIT 31.1
                            SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION



<PAGE>


                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Robert A. Stoutley, certify that:

1. I have  reviewed  this annual  report on Form 10KSB of  Industrial  Minerals,
Inc.;

2.  Based on my  knowledge,  this  annual  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 annual
report;

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

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and  I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

         a) designed  such  disclosure  controls and  procedures  to ensure that
material  information  relating to the  registrant,  including its  consolidated
subsidiary,  is made known to us by others within those  entities,  particularly
during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

         b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure controls
and  procedures  as of a date  within 90 days prior to the  filing  date of this
annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

         c)  presented  in  this  annual  report  our   conclusions   about  the
effectiveness of the disclosure  controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's   board  of  directors  (or  persons   performing   the  equivalent
functions):

         a) all significant  deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls  which  could  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability to record,
process,  summarize  and  report  financial  data  and have  identified  for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

         b) any fraud whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and



<PAGE>


6. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and I have  indicated in this
annual report whether there were significant  changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could  significantly  affect internal controls  subsequent to
the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including any corrective  actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: March 25, 2004

/s/Robert A. Stoutley
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert A. Stoutley, Chief Executive Officer, President and Director