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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7022

ANGELO B. HAM, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

OFFICER CAIN, SMU, Business Office, Lee Correctional 

Institution; L. MILLER, Grievance Coordinator, Lee 

Correctional Institution, 

 Defendants – Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. David C. Norton, District Judge. 

(6:08-cv-01764-DCN) 

Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: October 28, 2008 

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Angelo B. Ham, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

Angelo B. Ham appeals the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. The 

district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge 

recommended that relief be denied and advised Ham that failure 

to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive 

appellate review of a district court order based upon the 

recommendation. Despite this warning, Ham failed to object to 

the magistrate judge’s recommendation. 

The timely filing of specific objections to a 

magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve 

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when 

the parties have been warned of the consequences of 

noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th 

Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Ham 

has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific 

objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny 

Ham’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm the judgment 

of the district court. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

2 
3 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

AFFIRMED
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

BYTEMARK, INC.,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

MASABI LTD., Defendant

- Appellee

______________________

2019

- 1628

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas in No. 2:16

- cv

- 00543

- JRG

- RSP, Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

D ARIUSH K EYHANI

, Keyhani LLC, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff

- appellant. Also represented by A NDY T INDEL , Mann, Tindel & Thompson, Tyler, TX.

D OUGLAS P ERRY L A L ONE

, Fishman Stewart PLLC, Bloomfield Hills, MI, argued for defendant

- appellee. Also represented by T HOMAS D ONOHUE

, M ICHAEL F LUHLER

.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is Case: 19-1628 Document: 38 Page: 1 Filed: 02/10/2020O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (D YK

, T ARANTO

, and S TOLL

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

February 10, 2020 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Date Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court Case: 19-1628 Document: 38 Page: 2 Filed: 02/10/2020
#### Zeb Ward *v.*F. M. George, etc.

Attachment — Stay of Proceedings.

'The attorney of an attachment plaintiff has power to direct a stay of the attachment proceedings.

Attachment — Release of Levy.

An order by the attorney of the attachment plaintiff does not operate to release the levy.

Attachment — Surrender of Property.

Whether there was a surrender to attachment defendant of the property attached, was held a question for the jury.

*264APPEAL PROM JESSAMINE CIRCUIT COURT.

January 7, 1873.

*Breckenridge, Buckner, for appellant.*

*Thornton, Turner, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

We perceive no reason for disturbing the judgment of the court below. Conceding the right of the appellant to recover, the damages could be merely nominal. There is no allegation or proof showing any judgment against the sub-tenant for the amount of the rent or any order of court sustaining the attachment. The appellant dismissed his case and the attachment was thereby necessarily discharged, it may be that the attachment was discharged or the case dismissed because as the appellant insists, the property had been released ; still we can not well see how a recovery can be had against the sheriff for the value of the rent when there is nothing in the record showing that the appellant was entitled to' enforce his claim as against the tenant, either by reason of a judgment for the rent, or the levy of the attachment upon the property. If the attachment had been sustained and the appellant thereby invested with the power to subject the property levied on to its payment, the sheriff would then have been liable by reason of the surrender of the property to the debtor. We are not prepared to say that the direction of the attorney to stay proceedings on the attachment was exceeding his authority as such. The evident object of this order by the attorney was to authorize the sheriff to' leave the cattle upon the premises where he found them’ when the attachment was levied and did not operate as a release of the levy. Whether there was a surrender to the defendant of the property contained in the attachment by the sheriff was a question for the jury, and although the weight of evidence may be with the appellant, still the verdict in our opinion was authorized by the proof.

The case, as presented upon appellant’s own- testimony, would make the sheriff only nominally liable for either surrendering the property to the tenant or making a false return.

In this view of the case the appellant was not prejudiced by the instruction given for the appellee. The judgment is *affirmed.*
<PAGE>   1


                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


         As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the
incorporation of our report dated June 23, 1998 on Norwood Promotional Products,
Inc. Employees 401(k) Plan financial statements as of and for the years ended
December 31, 1996 and 1997 included in this Form 11-K into Norwood Promotional
Products, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-8 filed December 29, 1995
(Commission File No. 33-81017).



AKIN, DOHERTY, KLEIN & FEUGE, P.C.

San Antonio, Texas
June 26, 1998
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




CERTIFICATION
      FURNISHED 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 Patriot Scientific Corporation (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 31, 2007, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission and to which this Certification is an
      exhibit (the “Report”), the undersigned officer of the Company does hereby
      certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities and
      Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18
      of
      the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:




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





Date:
      October 10, 2007


/s/
                James L. Turley
              James
                L. Turley
              *Chief
                Executive Officer*
Exhibit 32

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 Mercari Communications Group, Ltd. on Form 10-QSB
for the  period ending November 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the  Report), I, Robert W. Marsik, Chief
Executive/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 and belief:

|(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.
|--- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March
21, 2007/s/  Robert W. Marsik
Robert W. Marsik
President
(Principal Executive and
Financial Officer)

A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating,  acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed
form within the electronic version of  this written statement 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
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         573,900
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       6,534,700
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,656,800
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,030,200
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          288,900
<BONDS>                                      2,970,400
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,770,900
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,030,200
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               442,800
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               310,200
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              69,900
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    62,700
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.32
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

NOVELLUS SYSTEMS, INC.

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the periodic report of Novellus Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 29, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, Richard S. Hill, Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code,
that to the best of my knowledge:



|(1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



|                   |  |     |  |                                   
|------------------ |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------
|Dated: May 6, 2008 |  | By: |  | /s/ Richard S. Hill               
|                   |  |     |  | Richard S. Hill                   
|                   |  |     |  | Chairman of the Board of Directors
|                   |  |     |  | and Chief Executive Officer       
|                   |  |     |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

EMOJI COMPANY GmbH, )

) Case No. 20-cv-5068

Plaintiff, ) 

)

) Judge Virginia M. Kendall

v. )

)

THE INDIVIDUALS, CORPORATIONS, )

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES, )

PARTNERSHIPS AND UNINCORPORATED )

ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED )

ON SCHEDULE A HERETO, )

)

Defendants. )

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff EMOJI COMPANY 

GmbH hereby dismisses with prejudice all causes of action in the complaint against the following 

Defendants identified in Schedule A. Each party shall bear its own attorney’s fees and costs.

No. Defendant 

106 jessgirl

262 Mapotofux

264 MEETNew

270 myneed

The respective Defendants have not filed an answer to the complaint or a motion for summary 

judgment in this matter. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is 

appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: January 22, 2021 By: s/Michael A. Hierl _ 

Michael A. Hierl (Bar No. 3128021)

William B. Kalbac (Bar No. 6301771)

Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, Ltd.

Three First National Plaza

70 W. Madison Street, Suite 4000

Chicago, Illinois 60602

(312) 580-0100 Telephone

mhierl@hsplegal.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

EMOJI COMPANY GmbH

Case: 1:20-cv-05068 Document #: 63 Filed: 01/22/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:3169
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned attorney hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of 

Voluntary Dismissal was filed electronically with the Clerk of the Court and served on all counsel of 

record and interested parties via the CM/ECF system on January 22, 2021.

s/Michael A. Hierl

Case: 1:20-cv-05068 Document #: 63 Filed: 01/22/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:3170
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

ART ASK AGENCY, )

) Case No.: 20-cv-4608

)

) Judge Manish S. Shah

Plaintiff, )

) 

v. )

)

THE INDIVIDUALS, CORPORATIONS, )

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES, )

PARTNERSHIPS AND UNINCORPORATED )

ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON )

SCHEDULE A HERETO, )

)

Defendants. )

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff POW! 

ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, hereby dismisses with prejudice all causes of action in the complaint against 

the following Defendants identified in Schedule A. Each party shall bear its own attorney’s fees and 

costs.

No. Defendant

27 dandelion trade

31 Dylan’s cabin

56 Moohue

62 RENZHI TECH

63 RuiYixin TECH

67 Shenzhen Huamei World Trading Co., Ltd.

76 Vanton inc

90 youbiya trade

103 nuoying

Case: 1:20-cv-04608 Document #: 35 Filed: 09/29/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:2844
The respective Defendants have not filed an answer to the complaint or a motion for summary 

judgment in this matter. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is 

appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: September 29, 2020 By: s/Michael A. Hierl _ 

Michael A. Hierl (Bar No. 3128021)

William B. Kalbac (Bar No. 6301771)

Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, Ltd.

Three First National Plaza

70 W. Madison Street, Suite 4000

Chicago, Illinois 60602

(312) 580-0100 Telephone

mhierl@hsplegal.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Pow! Entertainment, LLC

Case: 1:20-cv-04608 Document #: 35 Filed: 09/29/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:2845
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned attorney hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of 

Voluntary Dismissal was filed electronically with the Clerk of the Court and served on all counsel of 

record and interested parties via the CM/ECF system on September 29, 2020.

s/Michael A. Hierl

Case: 1:20-cv-04608 Document #: 35 Filed: 09/29/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:2846
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       9,289,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,208,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    492,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,658,000
<PP&E>                                      88,911,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (53,274,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              50,859,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,900,000
<BONDS>                                      2,558,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     5,679,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  36,722,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                50,859,000
<SALES>                                     24,541,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            25,721,000
<CGS>                                        7,691,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,691,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,788,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             193,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              9,049,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,923,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          7,126,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 7,126,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.26
        

</TABLE>
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT HEC TOR ALVAR ADO, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 12-73116 Age n c y No. A074-424-184 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 18, 2015 ** B e fore : TASHIM A , OW ENS, a nd FRIEDLAND, C irc uit Judge s. He c tor Alva

ra d o, a native and c itiz e n of M e xic o , pe t itions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s’ orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from an im

m igration judge ’ s de c ision de ny ing his a pplic at ion for c a

nc e l lation of re m ova l. Our jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w de novo que stions of la w 

# FIL ED N OV 25 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).or c onstitutiona l c la im s . Mohamme d v . Gonzale s , 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th C ir. 2005). W e dismiss in pa

rt, a nd de ny in pa rt, thepe t ition for re vie w. W e la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w the a ge nc y ’ s disc re t iona ry de c ision, pursua

nt to 8 U.S.C . § 1101(f), tha t Alva ra do la c ke d good m ora l c ha ra c te r. Se e Lope z-C aste llanos v . Gonzale

s , 437 F.3d 848, 854 (9th C ir. 2006). Although we re ta in jurisdic tion to re vie w c olora ble que stions of la

w or c onstitutiona

l c la im s, se e 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a)(2)(D), Alva ra do’ s c onte ntion tha

t the a g e nc y

e rre d in its mora l c ha ra c te r de te rm ination be c a use his a lle ge d m isre pre se ntations we re not liste d a s one of the pe r se sta

tutory e x c lusions found in 8 U.S.C . § 1101(f) fa ils be c a use the a ge nc y ’ s de te rm i n ation wa s ba s e d in thesta tute ’ s “ c at c h-a ll” provision. S e e 8 U.S.C . § 1101(f) (fina l pa ra gra ph). Alva

ra do’ s re m a ining c h a lle nge s to the a ge nc y ’ s disc re tiona

ry de c ision a

re not c olora

ble c o nstitutiona

l or le ga l c ha lle nge s that would invoke

our jurisdic tion. Pe titione r’ s re m a ining c onte ntion re g arding his e ligibility for a sta y is m oot. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDISM ISSE D in par t; DE NIE D in par t.

1 2 - 7 3 1 1 6 2
LINDSAY CORPORATION
MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE UMBRELLA PLAN
 PURPOSE.
 EFFECTIVE DATE OF PLAN.
 PLAN ADMINISTRATION.
 ELIGIBILITY.
 AWARDS.
      -1-




---



##### 



FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE CRITERIA.
 PERFORMANCE GOALS.
 DETERMINATION & PAYMENT OF AWARDS
  -2-




---



##### 



TERMINATION, SUSPENSION OR MODIFICATION OF THE PLAN.
 MISCELLANEOUS.
 No Assignments.
 No Right of Employment.
 Tax Withholding.
 Governing Law.
 Other Plans.
 Deferrals of Awards.
 -3-




---



##### 



Section 162(m).
  -4-
##### 



The May Department Stores Company     39 Exhibit 23 Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos. 333-42940 and
333-42940-01 of The May Department Stores Company on Form S-3, Registration Statements Nos.
333-59792, 333-76227, 333-00957, 333-103352 and 333-111987 of The May Department Stores Company on
Form S-8, and Registration Statement No. 333-12007 of The May Department Stores Company on Form S-4
of our reports dated March 23, 2005, relating to the consolidated financial statements and
financial statement schedules of The May Department Stores Company and subsidiaries and
managements report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting (which
excludes internal control over financial reporting at the Marshall Fields division, which was
acquired on July 31, 2004), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of The May Department
Stores Company for the year ended January 29, 2005. /s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP St. Louis, Missouri
March 24, 2005