alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1193

DAVID M. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant,

versusCLAYTON C. CARTER, individually and as Associate Judge for the Circuit Court of Queen Anne's County and the Second Judicial Circuit for the State of Maryland; GEORGE B. RASIN, JR., individually and as Associate Judge for Kent County and Chief Judge of the Second Judicial Circuit for the State of Maryland, Defendants - Appellees, andJOHN C. NORTH, II, individually and as associate Judge for the Circuit Court for Talbot County, and the Second Judicial Circuit forthe State of Maryland; TALBOT COUNTY, MARYLAND, a/k/a The County Council of Talbot County, a municipal body corporate and politic; JAMES WISE, individually and as Associate Judge for the Circuit Court for Caroline County and the Second Judicial Circuit for the State of Maryland; CAROLINE COUNTY, MARYLAND, a /k/a The Board of County Commissioners for Carolina County, a municipal body corporate and politic; DONALDSON C. COLE, JR., individually and as associate Judge for the Circuit Court for Cecil County and theSecond Judicial Circuit for the State of Maryland; CECIL C OUNTY, MARYLAND, a/k/a Board ofCounty Commissioners of Cecil County, Maryland, a municipal body corporate and politic; QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY, a/k/a The Board of County2Commissioners for Queen Anne's County, Maryland, a municipal body corporate and politic; JENNIFER BODINE; PHILIP C. FOSTER; WALLER S. HAIRSTON; GAIL HANDLY; JERI BAKER; JOAN B. TURNER; CHESAPEAKE PUBLISHING CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frank A. Kaufman, Senior District Judge. (CA-85-3088-K) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: June 3, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David M. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Alvin Ira Frederick, ECCLESTON & WOLF, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's orders directing a response to and granting defendants' motion for attorneys fees and costs. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Williams v. Carter , No. CA-85- 3088-K (D. Md. Oct. 30, 1995 & Dec. 28, 1995). We dispense withoral 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
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 13

- 00816

- CV

In re Tommy M. Adams

D. K., Sr., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 35TH DISTRICT COURT OF MILLS COUNTY, NO. 12

- 10

- 6415, THE HONORABLE STEPHEN EL LIS, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R T O S H O W C A U S E

PER CURIAM

This is a contempt proceeding ancillary to the appeal of D. K., Sr . The subject of

this proceeding is Tommy M. Adams , appellant’s attorney.

Appellant filed his notice of appeal on November 12, 2013 , and his brief was due

January 22, 2014 . On January 31, 2014, we ordered counsel to file appellant’s brief no later than

February 18, 2014 . To date, appellant’s brief has not been filed.

Therefore, it is hereb y ordered that Tommy M. Adams shall appear in person

before this Court on Tuesday

, March 18, 2014 at 1:30 p.m. , in the Third Court of Appeals

courtroom, located on the first floor of the Price Daniel, Sr. Building, 209 West 14th Street, inAustin, Travis C ounty, Texas, to show cause why he should not be held in contempt and have

sanctions imposed for his failure to obey our January 31, 2014 order. This order to show cause

will be withdrawn and Adams will be relieved of his obligation to appear before this Court as

ordered above if the Clerk of this Court receives appellant’s brief b y Friday, March 14

, 2014 at

5:00 p.m.

It is ordered on February 2 5 , 2014.

Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin and Field
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_______________________________

OSVALDO ALEXANDER TORRES, 

a/k/a Osvaldo Alex Torrez, a/k/a Tony 

Osvaldo, a/k/a Osvaldo Torres, a/k/a 

Osvaldo Torrez, a/k/a Alex Torres, a/k/a 

Osvaldo Alexander Torrez, 

 Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., United States 

Attorney General, 

 Respondent.

No. 09-9556

_______________________________

ORDER

_______________________________

The captioned appeal is dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to 10th Cir. R. 

42.1.

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of this court.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

April 5, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 09-9556 Document: 01018396287 Date Filed: 04/05/2010 Page: 1
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1768

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 28, 2003

Referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

AN ACT

To extend the national flood insurance program.

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 ‘‘National Flood Insur5 ance Program Reauthorization Act of 2004’’.
2

S 1768 RFH 

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PRO2 GRAM. 

3 (a) EXTENSION.—The National Flood Insurance Act 

4 of 1968 is amended—

5 (1) in section 1309(a)(2) (42 U.S.C. 

6 4016(a)(2)), by striking ‘‘December 31, 2003’’ and 

7 inserting ‘‘December 31, 2004’’; 

8 (2) in section 1319 (42 U.S.C. 4026), by strik9 ing ‘‘after’’ and all that follows through the period 

10 at the end and inserting ‘‘after December 31, 

11 2004.’’; 

12 (3) in section 1336(a) (42 U.S.C. 4056(a)), by 

13 striking ‘‘ending’’ and all that follows through ‘‘in’’ 

14 and inserting ‘‘ending December 31, 2004, in’’; and 

15 (4) in section 1376(c) (42 U.S.C. 4127), by 

16 striking ‘‘December 31, 2003’’ and inserting ‘‘De17 cember 31, 2004’’. 

18 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

19 this section shall be considered to have taken effect on 

20 December 31, 2003.

Passed the Senate October 27, 2003. 

Attest: EMILY J. REYNOLDS, 

Secretary.
# Sitemap

## July 02, 2013

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2013
- 07
- July 02, 2013

            - NASA Shares Images from New Space Station Camera to Neighbor to the North
            - NASA Announces Space Station Research and Development Conference
            - NASA Sounding Rocket Daytime Dynamo Launch Postponed
            - NASA Tests Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
            - NASA Tests Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
            - Spacewalk Training at Johnson Space Center
            - NASA Announces Space Station Research and Development Conference
            - NASA Seeks Information on Commercial Robotic Lunar Lander Capabilities
            - NASA Commercial Crew Partner SpaceX Completes Two Human-Critical Reviews
            - NASA Commercial Crew Partner SpaceX Completes Two Human-Critical Reviews
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

January 25, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. 

AMETH CHOUNDOULL,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 09-2253

(D.C. No.1:09-CR-00488-MCA-1) 

ORDER

Appellant’s “Voluntary Dismissal Agreement,” construed as a motion for

voluntary dismissal, is granted. 10th Cir. R. 27.3(A)(9) and 42(b).

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of the court.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 09-2253 Document: 01018355032 Date Filed: 01/25/2010 Page: 1
Total 

Number of 

Employees 

requiring 

PIV cards

Total Number 

of Employees 

requiring a 

NACI (or at 

least 

equivalent) 

that have not 

previously 

undergone a 

background 

check

Total 

Number of 

PIV cards 

Issued to 

Employees

Total 

Number of 

Contractors 

requiring PIV 

cards

Total Number 

of Contractors 

requiring 

NACIs (or at 

least 

equivalent) that 

have not 

previously 

undergone a 

background 

check

Total 

Number of 

PIV cards 

Issued to 

Contractors

Total 

Number of 

other 

individuals 

(e.g. visiting 

scientists) 

requiring 

PIV cards

Total Number of 

other individuals 

(e.g. visiting 

scientists) 

requiring NACIs 

(or at least 

equivalent) that 

have not 

previously 

undergone a 

background check

Total Number 

of PIV cards 

Issued to 

individuals 

other than 

employees or 

contractors

18,750 0 0 70,996 52,885 0 1,666 1,666 0
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. SAMUEL T. WHEELER.

June 21, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
[Cite as Mcleod v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2011-Ohio-7042.]

Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center 

65 South Front Street, Third Floor 

Columbus, OH 43215 

614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 

www.cco.state.oh.us

ALBERT MCLEOD, III 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2009-04220 

Judge Alan C. Travis 

Magistrate Matthew C. Rambo 

JUDGMENT ENTRY

{¶1} This case is sua sponte assigned to Judge Alan C. Travis to conduct all 

proceedings necessary for decision in this matter. 

{¶2} On December 30, 2011, the magistrate issued a decision recommending 

judgment for plaintiff. 

{¶3} Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i) states, in part: “A party may file written objections to a 

magistrate’s decision within fourteen days of the filing of the decision, whether or 

not the court has adopted the decision during that fourteen-day period as 

permitted by Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(e)(i).” 

{¶4} Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(e)(i) provides: “The court may enter a judgment either 

during the fourteen days permitted by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i) for the filing of 

objections to a magistrate’s decision or after the fourteen days have expired. If 

the court enters a judgment during the fourteen days permitted by Civ.R. 

53(D)(3)(b)(i) for the filing of objections, the timely filing of objections to the 
Case No. 2009-04220 - 2 - ENTRY

magistrate’s decision shall operate as an automatic stay of execution of the 

judgment until the court disposes of those objections and vacates, modifies, or 

adheres to the judgment previously entered.” 

{¶5} The court determines that there is no error of law or other defect evident on 

the face of the magistrate’s decision. Therefore, the court adopts the 

magistrate’s decision and recommendation as its own, including findings of fact 

and conclusions of law contained therein. Judgment is rendered in favor of 

plaintiff in the amount of $10,000. Court costs are assessed against defendant. 

The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry 

upon the journal. 

 

 _____________________________________ 

 ALAN C. TRAVIS 

 Judge 

cc: 

 

Christopher P. Conomy 

Assistant Attorney General 

150 East Gay Street, 18th Floor 

Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130 

Richard F. Swope 

6480 East Main Street, Suite 102 

Reynoldsburg, Ohio 43068 

MCR/dms 

Filed December 30, 2011 

To S.C. reporter March 20, 2012
#### Harris *v.*Commonwealth.

Gaming — Limitation.

A prosecution for committing gaming in defendant’s house is subject to the limitation of five years and one year after the commission of the offense.

Venue — Failure of Proof.

The commonwealth failed to prove that the offense was committed in the county of Marion, which was essential to recover.

APPEAL FROM MARION CIRCUIT COURT.

June 7, 1866.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Marshall :

This indictment is obviously founded on the tenth section of the Devised Statutes (chapter 42, title Gaming, 1 Stanton’s Rev. *216Stat. 565), and as that statute and its tenth section are among the laws against unlawful gaming, this prosecution, for suffering gaming at which money or property was bet, won, and lost in the defendant’s house, is subject to the limitation of five years, declared by the eighteenth section of the same act, and to the limitation of one year after the commission of the offense, prescribed by the twenty-first section of chapter 28, title Crimes and Punishments (2 Stanton’s Rev. Stat. 374), which section expressly excludes from its operation cases “when a different limitation is allowed by the statute imposing the penalty.”

There was no error in assuming five years to be the limitation. But the Commonwealth failed to prove that the offense charged was in fact committed within the county of Marion, a fact essential to the recovery of the penalty on this indictment, and the court erred in not granting a new trial, as in the absence of this proof the verdict is contrary to law.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Norman F. Swanton, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
of Warren Resources, Inc.;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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this 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-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
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
registrant, 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 registrant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 registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting;  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over the financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of
registrants board of directors:  (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 registrant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 registrants
internal control over financial reporting. /s/ Norman F. Swanton   
 November 29, 2004 A signed original of this original statement required by Section 302 has been
provided to Warren Resources, Inc., and will be retained by Warren Resources,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request. 3
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. CYRUS FORD.

June 27, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

May 20, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

JERRY MASKE,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v. 

ROBERT MURPHY; THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

STATE OF COLORADO,

 Respondents - Appellees.

No. 10-1180

(D.C. No. 1:10-CV-00832-ZLW)

ORDER

On April 29, 2010, this court issued an order directing the appellant to file,

within 14 days, a fully compliant petition for leave to proceed pro se in

accordance with the filing restrictions imposed in Maske v. Murphy, No. 09-1536,

2010 WL 529801 (10th Cir. 2010). The April 29, 2010 order also advised the

appellant that his failure to file the required documents would be grounds for

dismissal for failure to prosecute pursuant to 10th Cir. R. 42.1. 

Although appellant has submitted various items of correspondence to this

court, none comply with the filing restrictions imposed in Maske v. Murphy, No.

09-1536, 2010 WL 529801 (10th Cir. 2010). The time to file a compliant petition

for leave to proceed pro se has expired and no attorney has entered an appearance

Appellate Case: 10-1180 Document: 01018425568 Date Filed: 05/20/2010 Page: 1 
2

on the appellant’s behalf. 

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed for failure to prosecute. 10th Cir. R.

42.1. 

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of this court. 

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH SHUMAKER, Clerk of Court

By:

Christine Van Coney

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-1180 Document: 01018425568 Date Filed: 05/20/2010 Page: 2
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of
Principal Financial OfficerPursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

I,
John E. Yetter, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Derma Sciences, Inc., hereby
certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 of Derma
Sciences, Inc. (the Form 10-Q) upon my best knowledge and belief fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)  or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Derma Sciences, Inc.

|                       |                                                                                                              | 
|---------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 
|Dated: August 13, 2008 | /s/ John E. Yetter                                                                                           | 
|                       | John E. Yetter, CPA
        Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
        (Principal Financial Officer) |
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 of Huttig Building Products, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Thomas S. McHugh, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | 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/ Thomas S. McHughThomas S. McHughChief Financial OfficerMarch 9, 2004




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Huttig Building Products, Inc. and will be retained by Huttig Building Products, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### J. VICTOR CARTON v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, STATE COMMISSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.

May 16, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-15-0000640 22-FEB-2018 10:58 AM
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

April 2, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

JESSICA L. RODGERS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

YOUTH CRISIS CENTER, INC.,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 09-8101

(D.C. No. 1:09-CV-00020-ABJ)

(D. of Wyoming)

ORDER

In accordance with 10th Cir. R. 33.1 and upon consideration of the stipulation of

the parties to voluntarily dismiss the captioned appeal, this appeal is dismissed. See Fed.

R. App. P. 42(b).

Each party will bear their own costs on appeal. A copy of this order will stand as

the mandate of the court.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 09-8101 Document: 01018395770 Date Filed: 04/02/2010 Page: 1
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 of Promotora Valle Hermoso, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Iuriy Vladimirovich Shevchenko, 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 to the best of my knowledge: (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 result of operations of the Company.




/s/ Iuriy Vladimirovich ShevchenkoIuriy Vladimirovich Shevchenko, Chief Financial OfficerJuly 31 , 2009
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Books-A-Million, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to the best of such officer’s knowledge, that:





(i)           the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended May 1, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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








Dated: June 10, 2010





/s/ Clyde B. AndersonClyde B. AndersonChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer