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

**No. 16**  **- 6044** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. VERONICA LEVONNE JONES , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., Chief District Judge. ( 1:13

- cr - 00451

- WO

- 1; 1:15

- cv - 00072

- WO

- LPA )

Submitted : August 18, 2016 Decided: August 22, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Veronica Levonne Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Thomas Inman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpub lished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Veronica Levonne Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). 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) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Jones 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 legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, John Swallow, CEO, and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Timberline Resources Corporation (the Company), do 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:



1.  This Annual Report on 10KSB of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed 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



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



Date: May 30, 2006.



/s/ John Swallow



_______________________

John Swallow

(CEO and Chairman of the Board of Directors)
Order entered November 21, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05-13-01348-CV

IN RE SOUTHERN FOODS GROUP, LLC AND DEAN TRANSPORTATION, INC., Relators

On Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 3 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-12-07015-C



### ORDER

Pursuant to the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY real party’s November 15, 2013

motion to reconsider an d to vacate. On the Court’s own motion, we WITHDRAW our opinion

and VACATE our order of October 31, 2013.

We DISMISS as moot relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. We ORDER that each

party bear its own costs of the original proceeding.

/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE