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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6087

JACOB D. PEYTON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE, Director,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief

District Judge. (7:13-cv-00566-GEC-RSB)

Submitted: April 17, 2014 Decided: April 22, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jacob D. Peyton, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jacob D. Peyton seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 petition 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 Peyton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 May 12, 2017

p0509

Order 

Clerk

May 12, 2017

150695

In re APPLICATION OF MICHIGAN ELECTRIC

TRANSMISSION COMPANY FOR

TRANSMISSION LINE

_________________________________________

CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF OSHTEMO,

Appellant,

v SC: 150695

COA: 317893

MPSC No.: 00-017041

MICHIGAN ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION

COMPANY LLC,

Petitioner-Appellee,

and

MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,

Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, leave to appeal having been granted and the briefs and oral 

arguments of the parties having been considered by the Court, we AFFIRM the judgment 

of the Court of Appeals on the basis that appellant Oshtemo Township exercised control 

over its streets pursuant to clause three of Const 1963, art 7, § 29 when it enacted Zoning 

Ordinance No. 525 and that § 230.004(b) of such Ordinance—requiring that all new 

utility “lines, wires, and/or related facilities and equipment” within the Township be 

constructed underground “within the public road right-of-way and to a point within 250 

feet either side of said public right-of-way”—is unconstitutional because it is 

unreasonable. See People v McGraw, 184 Mich 233, 238 (1915). Therefore, the 

certificate that appellee Michigan Public Service Commission issued to appellee 

Michigan Electric Transmission Company pursuant to the Electric Transmission Line 

Certification Act, MCL 460.564 et seq., prevails over § 230.004(b) of Ordinance No. 

525.

WILDER, J., took no part in the decision of this case.
#### Josiah E. Just, relator v. Township of Wise.

*Mandamus*— M'aming *issues on the answer.*

On petition for *mandamus*to compel the payment of highway orders, the parties should frame their issues on the answer, if it denies the validity of the orders; it is immaterial to reply that in a certain suit the judge had made a finding sustaining the orders, and to rejoin that a full finding- was not requested, and make surrejoinder that it was, and *similiter.*

Mandamus.

Submitted Jan. *17.*

Decided Jan. 18.

*A. A. Ellis*for relator.

*E. E. Wheaton*for respondent.

*512Per Curiam.

This is an- application to compel the payment of highway orders. The respondent denies their validity on various grounds.

Replication that in a certain snit thereon in the circuit court the circuit judge made a finding of facts sustaining the orders.

Rejoinder denying that the circuit judge was requested to-make a full finding.'

Surrejoinder, that he was, and did. *SvnviUter.*

In the suit mentioned the court held it had no jurisdiction. All the proceedings subseqnent to the answer are immaterial. The parties should frame their issues on the answer.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4328 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4328

 To suspend temporarily the duty on 3-Cyclohexene-1-carboxylic acid, 6-
 [(di-2-propenylamino)carbonyl]-,(1R,6R)-rel-, reaction products with 
   pentafluoroiodoethane-tetrefluoroethylene telomer, ammonium salt.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 11, 2004

  Mr. Forbes introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To suspend temporarily the duty on 3-Cyclohexene-1-carboxylic acid, 6-
 [(di-2-propenylamino)carbonyl]-,(1R,6R)-rel-, reaction products with 
   pentafluoroiodoethane-tetrefluoroethylene telomer, ammonium salt.

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

SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON 3-CYCLOHEXENE-1-CARBOXYLIC ACID, 6-
              [(DI-2-PROPENYLAMINO)CARBONYL]-,(1R,6R)-REL-, REACTION 
              PRODUCTS WITH PENTAFLUOROIODOETHANE-TETREFLUOROETHYLENE 
              TELOMER, AMMONIUM SALT.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.38.42       3-Cyclohexene-1-   Free         No Change        No Change        On or Before 12/  ''.
                         carboxylic acid,                                                   31/2007
                         6-[(di-2-
                         propenylamino)car
                         bonyl]-,(1R,6R)-
                         rel-, reaction
                         products with
                         pentafluoroiodoet
                         hane-
                         tetrefluoroethyle
                         ne telomer,
                         ammonium salt
                         (CAS No. 392286-
                         82-7) (provided
                         for in subheading
                         3809.92.50)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit
      32.1**




**Certification
      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350**




In
      connection with the filing with the United States Securities and Exchange
      Commission of BBJ Environmental Technologies, Inc.’s (the “Company”) Quarterly
      Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004 (the “Report”), I,
      Jean Caillet, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify in my
      capacity as an officer of the Company, that:




(1)  the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of sections 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.




The
      above
      certification is given as of the date of the Report and is limited to the
      periods covered by the Report.




IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Certificate on November
      2005.




By:
            /s/
                Jean CailletJean
                Caillet,Chief
                Executive Officer




A
      signed
      original or 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 of its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated condensed financial statements for the six-months ended November
30, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1997
<CASH>                                       3,270,905
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  417,014
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    802,901
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,625,675
<PP&E>                                         634,454
<DEPRECIATION>                               (358,814)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,812,824
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,260,913
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        750
<COMMON>                                        48,152
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,160,009
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,812,824
<SALES>                                      2,177,148
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,177,148
<CGS>                                          639,720
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  639,720
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,541,109
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,076
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,914,696)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,914,696)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,914,696)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.06)
        

</TABLE>
#### Albert Speyers, plaintiff, *vs.*Henry Torstritch, defendant.

On an application for an order to compel the production of books, papers and documents, enough must be stated to justify the presumption that entries relating to a specified subject matter, and tending to prove some claim or defense exist. The documents required should be specifically stated, in order that the court may judge whether they are evidence. The mere affidavit of the party, or his counsel, to that effect, which assumes the office of the court, is not sufficient.

(Before Robertson, Ch. J.

at special term, February —, 1866.)

Motion for an order to compel the production of books, &c.

Robertson, Ch. J.

The Revised Statutes permit an enforcement of the production of books, papers and documents in the possession of an adverse party relating to the merits of a suit or a defense therein, (2 *R. S.*199, § 21,) but the court is to be governed by the principles and practice of the court of chancery in prescribing the cases and proceedings for such discovery. *(Id.*§ 22.) The Code extends this to books, papers and documents containing *evidence*relating to such merits and defense. It is held in the case of *Hoyt*v. *American Exchange*Bank, (1 *Duer,*652,) that enough must be stated to justify the presumption that entries relating to a specified subject matter, tending to prove some claim or defense, exist. The documents required should be specifically stated, *(Jackling*v. *Edmonds,*3 *E. D. Smith,*539,) in order that the court may judge whether they are evidence. The affidavit of the party or his counsel to that effect is not sufficient. *(Pegram*v. *Carson,*18 *How.*519.) In this case the petition does not state what the entries are, but merely generally that such books, documents and entries contain entries of purchases and sales of gold not entered in the account rendered to the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff will be able to prove from the insertion or omission of entries showing purchases and sales'of gold by the plaintiff on his own behalf and on *607behalf of others, and the comparison of such entries, that the plaintiff did not buy and sell the gold in question for the defendant. This is not sufficient under either the Revised. Statutes or the Code. If it were, it is met by an equally general denial of the existence of such entries. *(Hoyt*v. *American Exchange Bank, ubi supra.)*The defendant is not entirely remediless, as he may still subpoena the plaintiff to produce such books.

The motion is denied, with *$7*costs.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                      SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,
                                 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                           SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, the undersigned, as Chief Executive Officer of Microvision, Inc. (the "Company"), does hereby certify that to the undersigned's knowledge:

1)  the Company's annual report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements
   of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;

2)   the information contained in the Company's annual report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2007 fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| |  | /s/ALEXANDER Y. TOKMAN
    Alexander Y. Tokman
    Chief Executive Officer
| |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 3, 2008

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT


The Board of Directors
American HealthChoice, Inc.


         We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-3, and the accompanying Prospectus, of our report dated
January 17, 1997 for the year ended September 30, 1996 and to the reference to
our Firm under the heading "Experts" in the Prospectus filed herewith.



/s/ Hein + Associates LLP
-------------------------
HEIN + ASSOCIATES LLP

Houston, Texas
October 7, 1998
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the balance
sheet of CNL Income Fund VI, Ltd. at June 30, 1995, and its statement of income
for the six months then ended and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
the Form 10-Q/A of CNL Income Fund VI, Ltd. for the six months ended June 30,
1995.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1994
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1995
<CASH>                                       1,818,502
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  211,150
<ALLOWANCES>                                   151,217
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,891,810
<PP&E>                                      25,341,731
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,476,161
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              30,615,591
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          860,777
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  29,590,098
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                30,615,591
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,619,367
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  337,937
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,415,713
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,415,713
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,415,713
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Jack JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Carolyn CROSS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 00-7077.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 27, 2001.

Decided May 3, 2001.

Jack Johnson, pro se. Eugene Paul Murphy, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, VA, for appellee.

Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Jack Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *Johnson v. Cross,*No. CA-99-1253-AM (E.D.Va. July 12, 2000). We deny the motion for subpoena and 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 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4717 

To allow small public water systems to request an exemption from the requirements of any national primary drinking water regulation for a naturally 

occurring contaminant, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 25, 2004 

Mr. OTTER (for himself, Mr. STENHOLM, Mr. FLAKE, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. BEREUTER, Mr. PEARCE, Mr. CANNON, Mr. KOLBE, and Mr. DOOLITTLE) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To allow small public water systems to request an exemption 

from the requirements of any national primary drinking 

water regulation for a naturally occurring contaminant, 

and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Small Community Op5 tions for Regulatory Equity Act of 2004’’. 
2 

•HR 4717 IH 

1 SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FOR NONPROFIT SMALL PUBLIC 

2 WATER SYSTEMS RESPECTING NATURALLY 

3 OCCURRING CONTAMINANTS. 

4 The Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et 

5 seq.) is amended by inserting after section 1416 the fol6 lowing: 

7 ‘‘EXEMPTION FOR NONPROFIT SMALL PUBLIC WATER

8 SYSTEMS RESPECTING NATURALLY OCCURRING CON9 TAMINANTS

10 ‘‘SEC. 1416A. (a) EXEMPTION.—A State exercising 

11 primary enforcement responsibility for public water sys12 tems under section 1413 (or the Administrator in any non13 primacy State) shall exempt any nonprofit small public 

14 water system that submits a request in accordance with 

15 subsection (b) from the requirements of any national pri16 mary drinking water regulation for a naturally occurring 

17 contaminant. 

18 ‘‘(b) REQUEST.—To seek an exemption under this 

19 section, a nonprofit small public water system— 

20 ‘‘(1) shall submit a written request to the State 

21 exercising primary enforcement responsibility with 

22 respect to the system (or the Administrator in any 

23 nonprimacy State); and 

24 ‘‘(2) shall include in such request a finding 

25 under subsection (c). 

26 ‘‘(c) ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY.— 
3 

•HR 4717 IH 

1 ‘‘(1) FINDING.—To seek an exemption under 

2 this section, a nonprofit small public water system 

3 must find that compliance by the system with the 

4 national primary drinking water regulation involved 

5 is not economically feasible. 

6 ‘‘(2) NO REVIEW.—A finding by a nonprofit 

7 small public water system under this subsection shall 

8 not be subject to judicial or administrative review. 

9 ‘‘(d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

10 ‘‘(1) The term ‘naturally occurring contami11 nant’ includes arsenic, radon, radium, uranium, and 

12 any contaminant that is a disinfection byproduct (in13 cluding bromate, chlorite, haloacetic acids, and total 

14 trihalomethanes). 

15 ‘‘(2) The term ‘small public water system’ 

16 means a public water system serving 10,000 or 

17 fewer persons.’’. 

Æ
# k D#wtWj\• %uyjfc l Jbg^vriUi4> -^ 

# ^iW eaoje *in. a. po- k?74 (coh" c^ce toco^-iM-bb^ QJM00jd ••$•- 

### .1 COURT OFCRIMINALAPPET 

## OCT 29 2G^j Abel Acosta, Clerk "~ t H

' J K^ 1 

# fc^.£h9o(.S" RECEIVED IN COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS 

### 26 2015 

# fft! sta,Cierk U>^ i4 ^orvu Qrvv>

-J'U»

1 •* I

## 3M536IH-10EAST FT. STOCKTON. TX 79735

t.._i_ IN 73 ,'i i 32305 1'»V.[DLAIM'D / ODESSA TX y&y 1 "!•"' 2.3. OCT 2.CI.1S P'H 

### il|.|||l.i.|.|i||l|il|illlii'i||Hii'hl'li "li'lllll'l-i1