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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-2156

ANDREW U. D. STRAW,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (7:23-cv-00162-BO-BM)

Submitted: January 30, 2024 Decided: February 2, 2024

Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrew U. D. Straw, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2156 Doc: 51 Filed: 02/02/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Andrew U. D. Straw seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion 

for leave to refile two pro se motions that were denied pursuant to the court’s case 

management order. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order 

Straw seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral 

order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and deny Straw’s 

pending motions. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions 

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2156 Doc: 51 Filed: 02/02/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

JERRY G. BURGOS,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 273 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 9th day of September, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement

, 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.

October 12, 2018

s1009 

# Order

Clerk October 12, 2018

156458(68)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 156458

COA: 332734

Eaton CC: 15

- 020176

- FH

JAMES DAVID URBAN,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to strike ex parte affidavit is DENIED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Elton Hammonds, Appellant.

[870 NYS2d 805]

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Molea, J.), entered March 25, 2008, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the Supreme Court’s determination to designate him a level two sex offender was supported by clear and convincing evidence. The determination was based on the facts and admissions contained in the presen-tence investigation report, the case summary and the risk as*707sessment instrument of the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders, and the victim’s sworn statement *(see*Correction Law § 168-n; *People v Arnold,*35 AD3d 827 [2006]; *People v Murphy,*33 AD3d 778, 779 [2006]; *People v Thompson,*31 AD3d 409 [2006]; *People v Grimmett,*29 AD3d 766, 767 [2006]; *People v Hines,*24 AD3d 524, 525 [2005]; *People v Davis, 21*AD3d 590, 592 [2005]). Prudenti, RJ., Spolzino, McCarthy and Leventhal, JJ., concur.
13

‐ 655

‐ cv

Cody v. Darden



### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RU LINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER

FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE

PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT

FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC

DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE

A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the

Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse,

40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 28 th day of March, two

thousand fourteen.

PRESENT:

RALPH K. WINTER,

RICHARD C. WESLEY,

SUSAN L. CARNEY,

Circuit Judges

.

_________________________________________

Monique CODY,

Plaintiff

‐ Appellant,

v. 13

‐ 655

‐ cv

DARDEN RESTAURANTS, DARDEN RESTAURANTS, INC.,

GMRI INC., DBA Olive Garden Jon

‐ Jay Associates,

Inc.,Defendants

‐ Appellees. *

_________________________________________

FOR APPELLANT: Monique Cody, pro se

, Brooklyn, NY.

FOR APPELLEES: John T. Bauer, Littler Mendelson P.C.,

Melville, NY (Justin R. Marino, on the brief )

.

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of New York (Feuerstein, J. ).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,

ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED

.

Appellant Monique Cody, proceeding pro se

, appeals from the

judgment of the district court compelling arbitration of her claims of

wrongful termination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. ; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29

U.S.C. § 621, et seq. ; and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §

12101, et seq. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts,

procedural history of the case, and issues on appeal.

* The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the official caption as noted

above.

2We affirm, for substantially the reasons stated in the magistrate

judge’s report and recommendation, as adopted and supplemented by the

district court. See Report & Recomm., Cody v. Darden Restaurants

, No. 12

‐ cv

‐

484 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 11, 2012) (Dkt. No. 28); Order, No. 12

‐ cv

‐ 484 (E.D.N.Y.

Jan. 11, 2013) (Dkt. No. 35). We have considered all of Appellant’s

remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing

reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT:

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

3
#### H. T. Mattingly *v.*J. O. Mattingly.

Landlord’s Attachment.

The right of an attachment secured by a landlord against his tenant depends on whether he has reasonable grounds to believe that his debt will be lost unless an attachment issues.

Attachment.

A tenant who is an attachment defendant is entitled to make any defense that is available to him in any other kind of an action.

APPEAL FROM DAVIESS CIRCUIT COURT.

October 19, 1876.

Opinion by

Judge Elliott:

The judgment in this cause is founded on an attachment sued out by appellee for rent. By Sec. 5, Chap. 66, p. 602, Gen. Stat., a landlord is authorized, if his rent be due within a year thereafter, to go before the proper officer of the county in which the rented tenement lies and make affidavit “that there are reasonable grounds for belief, and that he believes that unless an attachment be issued he will lose his rent, and having executed the required bond an attachment shall issue in his favor.”

The right to the attachment depends upon the reasonable grounds of belief and the actual belief of the landlord that unless he is aided by this process of attachment he will lose his debt. On the trial of this cause the defendant set up a counterclaim for some $160.65, which he charged he had paid as appellee’s surety. This was a good set-off against appellee’s claim, and should have been allowed, but was rejected by the court.

*778
      *W. N.*Sweeney, *for appellant. Owen &*Ellis, *for appellee.*

The remedy of a landlord by attachment does not deprive his tenant of any defense that he would be entitled to if sued in any other form of action. But we are of opinion that the appellee’s grounds of belief that he would lose his debt were not reasonable, but on the contrary were unreasonable and cannot be sustained by this court.

The evidence conduces strongly to the conclusion that the personal property of the appellant then on the leased premises and its immediate vicinity, including his crop of tobacco, was worth from four to seven hundred dollars, and the proof is positive that he sold his tobacco which he owned when the attachment was sued out for $225.00.

If this attachment can be sustained, then any tenant can (as was done in this case) be deprived of the benefit of his contract to pay at the end of the year by the extraordinary remedy of attachment, and be compelled to pay, by said sacrifice of his property, a debt before it is due that he is amply able to pay when due, and when he has property subject to levy, enough to pay double the amount of his rent.

We cannot sanction a judgment sustaining an attachment under circumstances which are conclusive that the appellee by the least inquiry could have ascertained that his tenant’s estate was ample for the payment of the rent due on the rented premises.

The judgment was for $200.00, when by the covenant sued on the defendant was only bound for $195.00, and this was error. Wherefore the judgment is *reversed*and cause remanded with,directions to quash the attachment in this cause, and for further proceedings consistent herewith.
#### Natalya Tamara HAMPEL; Joseph Hampel, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America; Federal Bureau of Investigation, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-1187.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 31, 2001.

Decided June 6, 2001.

Natalya Tamara Hampel, Joseph Hampel, pro se.

Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Natalya Tamara Hampel and Joseph Hampel appeal the district court’s order summarily dismissing their complaint alleging that defendants acted under color of federal law to deprive the Hampels of their constitutional rights. 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. *Hampel v. United States,*No. CA-01-124-JFM (D.Md. Jan. 29, 2001). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

GEORG E L. MORTENSEN

,

Appellant

,

v.

DANIEL VILLEGAS AND ELVIA L.

RAMIREZ

,

Appellee s

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 9

- 00 080

- CV

Appeal from the

P robate Court No. 1

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 201 0

- P0068 1 )

O R D E R

On March 27 , 201 9 , this Court issued an order for mediation referral. The order required

the parties to make any objection to referral within ten days of the order. On March 29 , 201 9

Appellee s filed an objection. The Court finds Appellee s ’ objection persuasive.

Therefore, the Court ORDERS this appeal to continue, the appellate timetable suspension

is lifted and the Record shall be filed in this Court on or before May 1 , 2019

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 1 st day of April , 201 9

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 SELECTICA, INC. 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 Selectica, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year
ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Vincent G. Ostrosky, President and Chief Executive 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:  (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. Date: June 29, 2005 /s/ VINCENT G. OSTROSKY
Vincent G. Ostrosky
President and Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1918 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1918

  To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Library of 
 Congress, Government Publishing Office, Business Operations Revolving 
                       Fund for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
           referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Library of 
 Congress, Government Publishing Office, Business Operations Revolving 
                       Fund for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, 
              GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE, BUSINESS OPERATIONS 
              REVOLVING FUND FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Library of Congress, 
Government Publishing Office, Business Operations Revolving Fund for 
fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $6,000,000.
                                 <all>
```
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1988 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of Health 

and Human Services, National Institutes of Health National Institute 

of Nursing Research for fiscal year 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health National Institute of Nursing Research 

for fiscal year 2024. 

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


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1988 IH

1 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

2 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERV3 ICES, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH NA4 TIONAL INSTITUTE OF NURSING RESEARCH 

5 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

7 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail8 able for Department of Health and Human Services, Na9 tional Institutes of Health National Institute of Nursing 

10 Research for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 

11 $162,992,000. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CFO PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**As Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

Inconnection with the report of Gaiam, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with theU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Vilia Valentine, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1)     The Report fully complies with therequirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934; and

(2)     The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

Date:  March 14, 2007
|        |   | /s/ Vilia Valentine     |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|   |   | Vilia Valentine         |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

----
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Jonathan Stern, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A of Register.com, 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 officer 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; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):

     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.

Date: November 9, 2004                               By: /s/ Jonathan Stern
                                                         -------------------
                                                         Jonathan Stern
                                                         Chief Financial Officer
```
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS**

 

The undersigned hereby certify that theAnnual Report on Form 10-K of Medis Technologies Ltd. (the “Registrant”)for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Registrant.

 

 
| Dated: March 11, 2004 |                                  |
|-----------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                  |                                  |
|                  | /s/  ROBERT K.  LIFTON      |
|                  | Robert K. Lifton                      |
|                  | Chairman and Chief  Executive Officer |

 

 
|   | /s/  ISRAEL  FISHER                      |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------|
|   | Israel Fisher                                      |
|   | Senior Vice President and  Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.1


                                  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 American Oriental
Bioengineering, Inc. (the "Company"), on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December
31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on the
date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned of the Company, certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of their 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.

         A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and will be furnished to the SEC or
its staff upon request.



/s/ Shujun Liu
--------------------------------------------
Name: Shujun Liu
Title:  Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
April 4, 2005




This Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This exhibit is not "filed" for purposes of Section
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 but is instead furnished as provided
by applicable rules of the Securities Exchange Commission.