alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-20357

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DAVID ALAN ZOVATH,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. H-00-CR-422-1

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

June 7, 2002

Before JONES, SMITH and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

David Alan Zovath appeals his sentence following his

guilty plea to a charge of forging the signature of a federal

bankruptcy judge. As part of his plea agreement, Zovath waived the

right to appeal his sentence, but reserved the right to appeal the

district court’s upward departure from the sentencing guidelines.

A district court’s decision to depart from the guidelines is

reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Ashburn, 
No. 01-20357

-2-

38 F.3d 803, 807 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc). Zovath has not shown

that consideration of his character and conduct for upward

departure is prohibited by law. See id.; U.S.S.G. § 1B1.4. 

Zovath argues (1) that there was insufficient basis for

an upward departure, and (2) that the district court gave no

explanation for why it bypassed intermediate offense levels in

choosing a six-level upward departure. United States v. Lambert,

984 F.2d 658, 663 (5th Cir. 1993)(en banc)(departure pursuant to §

4A1.3). We reject the first contention, inasmuch as the evidence

of bankruptcy court fraud, a theft charge and outstanding warrants

show that appellant has a longstanding and complete lack of respect

for the judicial process not taken into account by the guidelines

for the offense of conviction. Second, as to the extent of

departure, the district court stated that it had determined that a

sentencing range of 18 to 24 months was appropriate. The district

court was not required to discuss each category rejected. Id. ;

see also United States v. Lara, 975 F.2d 1120, 1125 n.3 (5th Cir.

1992). The district court did not abuse its discretion in

departing upward six offense levels.

Zovath argues that the judge should have recused himself

because of information submitted in relation to his request to be

released on bond. "[O]pinions formed by the judge on the basis of

facts introduced or events occurring in the course of the current

proceedings, or of prior proceedings, do not constitute a basis for

a bias or partiality motion unless they display a deep-seated
No. 01-20357

-3-

favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible."

Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). The district

court did not abuse its discretion in denying the recusal motion.

AFFIRMED.
#### Susan LUDWIG, Appellant, v. NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC., Appellee.

No. 00-2258.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 14, 2000.

Decided Jan. 5, 2001.

Before LOKEN and MAGILL, Circuit Judges, and BATTEY,1 District Judge.

1

. The Honorable Richard H. Battey, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

Susan Ludwig (Ludwig) appeals the district court’s2 order granting summary judgment in favor of her employer, Northwest Airlines, Inc. (Northwest), in this employment discrimination action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e *et seq.,*and the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn.Stat. § 363. After de novo review, *see Rose-Maston v. NME Hosps., Inc.,*133 F.3d 1104, 1107 (8th Cir.1998), we conclude the district court’s judgment was proper for the reasons stated in its thorough opinion. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

2

. The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.
#### Willard BRYANT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D10-3279.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 23, 2011.

Willard Bryant, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before GERSTEN, CORTIÑAS, and LAGOA, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See*Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(f).
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

June 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 132850(32) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, RUSSELL HILEMAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 132850 COA: 265641 WCAC: 03-000119 TRAILER EQUIPMENT, INC., a/k/a TRAILER X-PRESS, INC., and ACCIDENT FUND INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court's April 4, 2007 order is considered, and it is DENIED, beca use it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

d0618 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 26, 2007

Clerk
→ Effective health and safety training during

normal working hours at the regular rate of

pay.

→ File or make a complaint of a safety or health

violation to a federal or state agency, a mine

operator, an operator’s agent or a miners’

representative.

→ Have an inspection of the mine where there is

belief that an imminent danger, or a violation

of the Act or of a safety or health standard

exists.

→ Withdraw from the mine for not having the

required health and safety training.

→ Be paid during certain periods of time when a

withdrawal order has closed a mine or part of

a mine.

→ Take part in proceedings under the Mine

Act including testifying, assisting, or filing a

complaint with the Federal Mine Safety and

Health Review Commission.

→ Refuse to work in conditions you believe are

unsafe, unhealthy, or illegal (after notifying the

operator of the condition and giving them an

opportunity to address the situation).

→ A medical evaluation or consideration for

transfer to another job location because of

harmful physical agents and toxic substances.

→ Exercise any rights afforded by the Mine Act.

→ Select a representative for safety and health

purposes.

Speak up, save lives

MSHA has your back

HAZARDOUS CONDITION COMPLAINTS

Report violations, hazardous conditions, or imminent danger to 

MSHA. Call or write any MSHA inspector or office, call our 24/7 hotline 

at 1-800-746-1553 or report it online at msha.gov.

For more information on miners’ rights go to msha.gov/MinersRights

An employer cannot retaliate against you for exercising your rights under the Mine 

Act’s whistleblower protection laws. Retaliation includes such actions as firing, 

denying overtime or promotion, or reducing pay or hours.

 AS A MINER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO:

Always:

→ Comply with all federal and state laws,

regulations, and your mine’s safety and health

policies.

→ Notify the operator when refusing to work in

unsafe or unhealthy conditions. NOTE: You

must notify the operator of the condition

and give them an opportunity to address the

situation.

Never: 

→ Give advance notice of an inspection

conducted under the Act.

→ Knowingly make a false statement to MSHA.

→ Knowingly make a false representation (orally

or in writing) on an application, record,

report, plan, training certificate, or other

document required to be kept or filed with

MSHA.

→ Smoke in an underground coal, gassy

metal/nonmetal mine, or other surface or

underground location where smoking is

prohibited.

You do not need to identify 

yourself when reporting a 

hazardous condition!

 YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES ARE TO:
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-19-00065-CV

William Joseph Connors III, Appellant

v.

Connie Vandergriff, The Appointed Substitute Trustee for Citimortgage, Inc., Appellee

FROM THE 353RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 

NO. D-1-GN-17-005968, THE HONORABLE TIM SULAK, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

PER CURIAM

Appellee Connie Vandergriff, the Appointed Substitute Trustee for Citimortgage, 

Inc., has notified this Court that appellant William Joseph Connors III has filed for bankruptcy 

protection (United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Texas, Case No. 19-10725 D). See Tex. R. 

App. P. 8.1. Accordingly, this appeal is stayed. See 11 U.S.C. § 362; Tex. R. App. P. 8.2. Any 

party may file a motion to reinstate the appeal if permitted by federal law or the bankruptcy 

court. See Tex. R. App. P. 8.3(a). It is the parties’ responsibility to notify the Court as soon as 

possible if an event occurs that would allow reinstatement. Id. Failure to notify this Court of a 

lift of the automatic stay or the conclusion of the bankruptcy proceeding may result in the 

dismissal of the case for want of prosecution. See id. R. 42.3(b).
2

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Triana and Smith

Bankruptcy

Filed: July 3, 2019
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1007

THEODORE B. GOULD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

SERVICE; JOSEPH DELEON; RICHARD L. GRUBAUGH; BARBARA

PETROHOVICH; WILLIAM MARTIN; CHARLES PINE; ANN M. WELHAF; AND

OTHERS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, District

Judge. (3:06-cv-00008-nkm)

Submitted: May 29, 2008 Decided: June 4, 2008

Before TRAXLER, GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Theodore B. Gould, Appellant Pro Se. Ivan C. Dale, UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Theodore B. Gould appeals from the district court’s

orders: (1) dismissing his complaint in which he alleged

conspiracy and fraud and sought a refund of taxes and compensatory

damages, and (2) denying his motion for reconsideration of the

order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. See Gould v. United States, No. 3:06-00008-nkm (W.D. Va.

Aug. 9 & Oct. 16, 2007). 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
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-13-00198-CR

EX PARTE: NIJINSKI TYWON MURPHY

Original Habeas Proceeding

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Nijinski Tywon Murphy has filed a petition with this Court asking us to grant him habeas 

corpus relief and release him from custody. Murphy is currently before this Court in a separate 

appeal from the conviction for which he seeks habeas relief. 

The authority to grant habeas relief is granted by Article 11.05 of the Texas Code of 

Criminal Procedure. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.05 (West 2005). It specifies that the 

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, district courts, county courts, or any judge of those courts have 

the power to issue the writ of habeas corpus. Notably absent from that list are the Texas Courts 

of Appeals and the justices of those Courts of Appeals. The habeas jurisdiction of this Court is 

extremely narrow and does not include criminal cases. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221 (West 

2004). We have no jurisdiction over this proceeding.

We dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction.

Bailey C. Moseley

Justice

Date Submitted: September 10, 2013

Date Decided: September 11, 2013

Do Not Publish
585 A.2d 399

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. FRANK GONZALEZ.

October 16, 1990.

Petition for certification denied. (See 241 *N.J.Super.*92, 574 A.2d 487)
#### Warren E. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D10-1583.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Oct. 22, 2010.

Warren Evan Williams, Okeechobee, pro se.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Rock McGuigan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the summary denial of Appellant’s Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 motion to correct illegal sentence without prejudice to Appellant to file a facially sufficient motion. *See Fritzner v. State,*864 So.2d 574 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); *McKowen v. State,*816 So.2d 1254 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).

AFFIRMED.

SAWAYA, ORFINGER and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

RF MONOLITHICS, INC.

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, David M. Kirk, Chief Executive Officer and President of RF Monolithics, Inc. (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that, to his knowledge:



| | 1. | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended May 31, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be executed this 15th day of July, 2009.



/s/ David M. KirkName: David M. KirkTitle: Chief Executive Officer and President


*A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>               5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          40,269
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  743,467
<ALLOWANCES>                                   106,702
<INVENTORY>                                  1,398,449
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,515,421
<PP&E>                                       2,872,207
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,509,885
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,303,681
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,573,813
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    14,501,808
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,303,681
<SALES>                                      2,073,185
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,077,150
<CGS>                                          473,958
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,967,513
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               190,650
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              52,905
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (554,971)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (554,971)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (554,971)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    $(0.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  $(0.23)


</TABLE>
Exhibit (10)(a)

  

  

  

  

  

  

  Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

  

  

  

  

  We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in
    Post-Effective Amendment No. 34 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-170529) and Amendment No. 862 to the 1940 Act Registration
    Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-08517), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) March 9, 2021, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 15, 2021, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life Variable Annuity Account N
    for the registration of interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

  Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

  December 10, 2021
584 A.2d 201

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. GEORGE CARAYIANIS.

May 1, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ANTHONY T. SAXTON.

December 8, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
EXHIBIT 32 Section 1350 Certification of the Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officers

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Thomas W. Schneider, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Walter F. Rusnak, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer of Pathfinder Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company"), each certify in his capacity as an officer of the Company that he has reviewed the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2019 and that to the best of his knowledge:

| 1. | the report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

The purpose of this statement is solely to comply with Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, as amended by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

 

| April 20, 2020 |   | /s/ Thomas W. Schneider                                            |
|----------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
|           |   | Thomas W. Schneider                                                |
|           |   | President and Chief Executive Officer                              |
|           |   |                                                               |
| April 20, 2020 |   | /s/ Walter F. Rusnak                                               |
|           |   | Walter F. Rusnak                                                   |
|           |   | Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer  

  |
584 A.2d 197

#### IN THE MATTER OF PAUL C. CAVALIERE, JR., AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

January 31, 1991.

ORDER

PAUL C. CAVALIERE, JR. of WAYNE, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1956, having entered pleas of guilty to charges of utilizing interstate commerce to facilitate a bribery scheme, in violation of 18 *U.S. C.A.*§§ 1952(a)(3) and 2, and income tax evasion, in violation of 26 *U.S. C.A.*§ 7201; and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that pursuant to *R.*l:20-6(b), PAUL C. CAVALIERE, JR. is temporarily suspended from the practice of law pending the final resolution of ethics proceedings against him, effective immediately and until the further order of the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that PAUL C. CAVALIERE, JR. be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of his suspension; and it is further

ORDERED that PAUL C. CAVALIERE, JR. comply with Administrative Guideline No. 23 of the Office of Attorney Ethics dealing with suspended attorneys.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

I, Michael D. Burger, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the quarterly report of Merix Corporation on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended August 30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such quarterly report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all
material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Merix Corporation.

Date: October 8, 2008



|    |  |                                                                              
|--- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ MICHAEL D. BURGER                                                        
|    |  | Michael D. Burger                                                            
|    |  | Director, President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
#### STATE ex rel. Freddie BURRELL v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2009-KH-2294.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 19, 2010.

In re Burrell, Freddie; —Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s Action dated October 1, 2010; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 269-172.

Denied.