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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 97-30751

Summary Calendar

 

JESSE ROGERS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CRIMINAL JUSTICE FACILITY OF IBERIA PARISH;

GREEN, LIEUTENANT; AL MERITS, LIEUTENANT; 

NATHANIEL MITCHELL; DAN DAVID; SIDNEY HEBERT,

SHERIFF; ERROL ANTOINE ROMO ROMERO, SHERIFF,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CV-1932

- - - - - - - - - -

April 22, 1998

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jesse Rogers appeals the dismissal of his civil rights

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged torture and abuse which

occurred while he was incarcerated at Iberia Parish Criminal

Justice Facility. Rogers argues that the district court erred in

granting Appellants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing

his action as untimely. He contends that the doctrine of contra

non valentem agere nulla currit praescripto operates to suspend 
No. 97-30751 

-2-

the statute of limitations and make this action timely. He also

argues that the district court erred in excluding expert

testimony which he submitted and in improperly weighing his own

affidavit. 

We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties

and affirm substantially for the reasons given by the district

court. See Rogers v. Criminal Justice Facility of Iberia Parish,

96-CV-1932 (W.D. La. July 1, 1997). Rogers has failed to meet

his burden of establishing that there is a genuine issue of

material fact, or that the district court erred in its

evidentiary or legal holdings. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e); Melton v.

Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass’n of America, 114 F.3d 557, 559 (5th

Cir. 1997). Although it was not necessary to exclude any portion

of Rogers’ affidavit as inadmissible, any error resulting from

this exclusion was harmless. See Richardson v. Oldham, 12 F.3d

1373, 1378 (5th Cir. 1994). 

AFFIRMED.
#### Henry P. Bottom *&c. v.*R. H. Caldwell’s Trustee.

Bond to Commonwealth to Secure Payment to Individual, Virtually a Bond to that Person.

A bond to the Commonwealth for securing payment to the person entitled to receive it, is Virtually a bond to that person; and is, therefore, a good statutory bond in substance and effect.

APPEAL FROM BOYLE CIRCUIT COURT.

June 15, 1868.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Robertson:

The statute does not expressly require the bond to be executed to the superintendent, but only to be payable to him. The bond to the commonwealth for securing payment to the person entitled to receive it is virtually a bond to that person; and is therefore a good statutory bond in substance and effect.

But, if technically not good as a statutory obligation, still, being given to the commonwealth for fulfilling the prescribed trust and executed voluntarily, it is enforcible as a good common law bond.

And, although the petition did not explicitly aver an order by the county court, to pay to the plaintiff, yet, by law, he was *635entitled to payment, and, under the general .averment of demand and refusal, proof by the exhibit of the orders as made by the county court on Botom to pay over the fund' to his successor entitled the latter to maintain this action in the name of the commonwealth as the only obligee in the bond, and sustains the judgment as rendered.

*J. B. & P. B. Thompson, for appellant.*

*Durham, Jacobs, for appellee.*

Wherefore the judgment is *affirmed.*
Case 2:15-mj-01752-JFM Document 4 Filed 10/15/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01752-JFM Document 4 Filed 10/15/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01752-JFM Document 4 Filed 10/15/15 Page 3 of 3
#### Gray *v.*Woods.

In error.

*Monday, December*11.

EQUITY relieves against mistakes, as well as against fraud, in a deed or other written contract; and parol evidence is admissible to prove the mistake, though it be denied in the answer. *Gillespie et ux.*v. *Moon,*2 Johns. C. R. 585. But equity will not interpose in such case, unless there be the clearest and most satisfactory proof of the mistake and of the agreement between the parties. *Lyman*v. *The United Ins. Co.,*Id. 630.

The notice to a purchaser of a previous unrecorded conveyance for the land is not binding, unless it be given by a person interested in the property, and in the course of the treaty for the purchase. A purchaser will not be bound by notice in a previous transaction which he may have forgotten. Sugd. on Vend. 490.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6981

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

PHILLIP ERNEST DIXON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,

District Judge. (CR-00-36; CA-03-412)

Submitted: November 19, 2004 Decided: December 2, 2004

Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Phillip Ernest Dixon, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane Hairston,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Phillip Ernest Dixon seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of a magistrate judge and

denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

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

(2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676,

683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and

conclude that Dixon 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
I

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4821

To extend into fiscal year 1999 the visa processing period for diversity

applicants whose visa processing was suspended during fiscal year 1998

due to embassy bombings.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 13, 1998

Mr. SMITH of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To extend into fiscal year 1999 the visa processing period

for diversity applicants whose visa processing was suspended during fiscal year 1998 due to embassy bombings.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION INTO FISCAL YEAR 1999 OF VISA

4 PROCESSING PERIOD FOR DIVERSITY APPLI5 CANTS WHOSE VISA PROCESSING WAS SUS6 PENDED DURING FISCAL YEAR 1998 DUE TO

7 EMBASSY BOMBINGS.

8 (a) EXTENSION OF PERIOD.—
2

•HR 4821 IH

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding clause

2 (ii)(II) of section 204(a)(1)(G) of the Immigration

3 and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(G)), in

4 the case of an alien described in paragraph (1) or

5 (2) of subsection (b)—

6 (A) the petition filed for classification

7 under section 203(c) of such Act (8 U.S.C.

8 1153(c)) for fiscal year 1998 is deemed ap9 proved for processing for fiscal year 1999, with10 out the payment of an additional $75 filing fee;

11 and

12 (B) the priority rank for such an alien for

13 such classification for fiscal year 1999 is the

14 earliest priority rank established for such classi15 fication for such fiscal year.

16 (2) VISAS CHARGED TO FISCAL YEAR 1999.—

17 Immigrant visas made available pursuant paragraph

18 (1) shall be charged to fiscal year 1999.

19 (b) ALIENS ELIGIBLE FOR BENEFITS.—

20 (1) PETITIONING ALIEN.—An alien described in

21 this paragraph is an alien who—

22 (A) had a petition approved for processing

23 under section 203(c) of the Immigration and

24 Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(c)) for fiscal

25 year 1998; and
3

•HR 4821 IH

1 (B)(i) had been scheduled for an immi2 grant visa interview on or after August 6, 1998,

3 and before October 1, 1998, at the United

4 States embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, at the

5 United States embassy in Dar Es Salaam, Tan6 zania, or at any other United States visa proc7 essing post designated by the Secretary of State

8 as a post at which immigrant visa services were

9 suspended in fiscal year 1998 as a result of

10 events related to the August 7, 1998, bombing

11 of those embassies; or

12 (ii) had been interviewed for such a visa

13 but refused issuance under section 221(g) of

14 such Act (8 U.S.C. 1201(g)) during fiscal year

15 1998 at such an embassy or post,

16 (2) FAMILY MEMBERS.—An alien described in

17 this paragraph is an alien who—

18 (A) is a family member described in sec19 tion 203(d) of the Immigration and Nationality

20 Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(d)) of an alien described in

21 paragraph (1); or

22 (B)(i) is a family member described in

23 such section of an alien described in paragraph

24 (1)(A); and
4

•HR 4821 IH

1 (ii) meets the requirement of clause (i) or

2 (ii) of paragraph (1)(B).

Æ
Exhibit 32   Certification of Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof National Health Realty, Inc.For The Quarter Ended June 30, 2007   The undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the undersigned=s best knowledge and belief, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for National Health Realty, Inc. (AIssuer@) for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the AReport@):  (a)fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and(b)the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.  This Certification accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Issuer for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.  This Certification is executed as of  August 7, 2007.   /s/Robert G. AdamsRobert G. AdamsPresident/s/Donald K. DanielDonald K. DanielSenior Vice President and Controller(Principal Financial Officer)  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.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Stacy Holtz","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/stacy-a-holtznasa-gov\/","title":"STS-48","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"2m7qFvynnV\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/sts-48\/\">STS-48<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/sts-48\/embed\/#?secret=2m7qFvynnV\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“STS-48” — NASA\" data-secret=\"2m7qFvynnV\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/images-assets.nasa.gov\/image\/S48-S-002\/S48-S-002~large.jpg?w=600&h=1536&fit=clip&crop=faces%2Cfocalpoint","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":1536}
#### Cain *v.*The State.

An indictment concluding “ against the peace of the state, ” may be so amended by the prosecuting-attorney, with leave of the Court, as to read, against the peace and dignity of the state.”

*Friday, June*1.

ERROR to the *Daviess*Circuit Court. Indictment for keepjng a digor(jerly house, &c., and judgment for the state.

Sullivan, J.

The indictment in this case, as it was returned by the grand jury, did not conclude “ against the peace and dignity of the state.” The *contra dignitatem*was *omitted.*Before the defendant was arraigned, the prosecuting-attorney moved *the Court to*insert the omitted words. The defendant objected, but the Court overruled the objection and permitted the amendment to be made.

The indictment, as it was returned, was undoubtedly insufiicient; but the question is, whether the Court was authorised to amend it, so as to make the conclusion of the indictment conform to the requisition of the constitution?

There is no doubt but that the Court, by the consent of the grand jury, may amend indictments in matters of form. They may be amended in any case where an amendment was allowable at common law. In this respect, there is no difference between civil and criminal cases. The settled practice, when an indictment is returned into Court, is to obtain the consent of the grand jury, that the Court may amend it in matters of form, not altering the substance.

The words with which the constitution requires all indictments to conclude, are words of form. The *facts*a2’e found *513by the jury on their oath, but the conclusion is affixed by law. The grand jury have nothing to do with finding that sion, nor does the constitution require that it should be found by the grand jury. The amendment made in this case did not hinder, delay, or embarrass the defendant, nor did it deprive him of any just means of defence.

*J. Law,*for the plaintiff.

*W. Quarles,*for the state.

We think the Court did right in permitting the amendment to be made, and that the judgment of the Circuit Court should be affirmed. 1 Ch. Cr. Law, 297, 8, and the authorities cited. 1 Saund. R. 249, note 1.

*Per*Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed with costs.
Exhibit 32.1 Section 906 Certification of Chief Executive Officer

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q
for the period ended March 31, 2006 (the Form 10-Q) of Eastern Virginia Bankshares, Inc. (the Company), I, Joe A. Shearin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| |  |  | the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods
presented in the Form 10-Q.
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|    |  |                         |  |  |  |                   |  | 
|--- |  | ----------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------- |  | 
|By: |  | /s/ Joe A. Shearin      |  |  |  | Date: May 4, 2006
|    |  | Joe A. Shearin          |  |  |  |                  
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  |                  



23
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4831 Introduced in House (IH)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 4831

  To temporarily reenact chapter 12 of title 11 of the United States 
                                 Code.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 14, 1998

Mr. Smith of Michigan introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To temporarily reenact chapter 12 of title 11 of the United States 
                                 Code.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. TEMPORARY REENACTMENT OF BANKRUPTCY PROVISIONS RELATING TO 
              FAMILY FARMERS.

    Chapter 12 of title 11 of the United States Code, as in effect on 
September 30, 1998, is hereby reenacted for the period beginning on 
October 1, 1998, and ending on April 1, 1999.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This Act shall take effect on October 1, 1998.
                                 <all>
```
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Kelli Mars","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/kelli-l-marsnasa-gov\/","title":"40 Years Ago: The Countdown Begins for STS-1; First Launch Attempt Scrubbed","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"eaFvWawK5Y\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/history\/40-years-ago-the-countdown-begins-for-sts-1-first-launch-attempt-scrubbed\/\">40 Years Ago: The Countdown Begins for STS-1; First Launch Attempt Scrubbed<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/history\/40-years-ago-the-countdown-begins-for-sts-1-first-launch-attempt-scrubbed\/embed\/#?secret=eaFvWawK5Y\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“40 Years Ago: The Countdown Begins for STS-1; First Launch Attempt Scrubbed” — NASA\" data-secret=\"eaFvWawK5Y\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/sts-1_l-1_week_17_sts1-0902-noid-4.11.81.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":758}
<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 23



                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-8 pertaining to The UniMark Group, Inc. 1999 Stock Option Plan of our
report dated March 21, 2002, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of The UniMark Group, Inc. included in this Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

                                                      Mancera, S.C.
                                                      Member Practice of
                                                      Ernst & Young Global

Mexico City, Mexico
March 27, 2002