alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-40001 Conference Calendar

CHARLES WESTERBY Plaintiff-Appellant

v. GREG ABBOTT, Attorney General ; WARDEN SMITH, Mark Stiles Unit; UNIDE NTIFIED PITTMAN, Captain; STACY DAVIS; JACK BIVEN, Unknown Inmate Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:06-CV-248
Before KING, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Charles Westerby, Texas prisoner # 579967, appeals the 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii) dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The district court held that Westerby’s complaint was barred by the limitations period. Westerby has failed to brief the limitations issue on appeal, and, therefore, its United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 21, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 08-40001

2 review is waived. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy SheriffAbner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Westerby’s motion to remand the case is denied. Westerby’s appeal is without arguable merit and is, thus, frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, it is dismissed. See 5

TH C IR
. R. 42.2. The district court’s dismissal of his complaint and this court’s dismissal of his appeal both count as strikes for purposes of § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Westerby is warned that if he acc umulates three strikes, he will no longer be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED; MOTION DENIED.
Exhibit 32.1   ForeverGreen Worldwide Corp.  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 18 U.S.C. Section 1350  The undersigned executive officers of ForeverGreen Worldwide Corp. certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:  • the annual report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2011, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  • the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date:  September 27, 2012




Date:  September 27, 2012/s/ Ronald K. Williams
Ronald K. Williams
Chief Executive Officer



/s/ Paul T. Frampton
Paul T. Frampton
Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

KENNY SAM PIERCE, :

:

Plaintiff, :

:

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 11-0214-CG-M

:

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, :

Commissioner of Social Security, :

:

Defendant. :

JUDGMENT

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Plaintiff’s Application for 

Attorney Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) is hereby GRANTED and that 

Plaintiff’s attorney is hereby AWARDED an EAJA fee in the amount of $2,062.50, payable to 

Plaintiff. No costs are taxed.

DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of April, 2012.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:11-cv-00214-CG-M Document 25 Filed 04/04/12 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32(b)

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
FOR PPL CORPORATION'S 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 2004

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PPL Corporation (the "Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Covered Report"), I, the principal financial officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that:

| |  | The Covered Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and                   
| | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |   |                                                                                                                                                             
| |  | The information contained in the Covered Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





|Date:  May 7, 2004 | /s/  John R. BiggarJohn R. Biggar
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
PPL Corporation
|------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6226

ERIC LAMONT WILKINS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

KENNETH L. OSBORNE, Warden; J. W. ARMENTROUT,

Assistant Warden,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District

Judge. (CA-96-1054-R)

Submitted: April 17, 1997 Decided: May 2, 1997

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric Lamont Wilkins, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint without prejudice. Because a

dismissal without prejudice is generally not appealable, we dismiss

the appeal as interlocutory. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar

Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). 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
Exhibit 23.1

LOGO



| |  |                         |  |           |  |               
| |  | ----------------------- |  | --------- |  | --------------
| |  | KPMG LLP                |  |           |  |               
| |  | Chartered Accountants   |  | Telephone |  | (403) 691-8000
| |  | 2700 205 - 5thAvenue SW |  | Telefax   |  | (403) 691-8008
| |  | Calgary AB T2P 4B9      |  | Internet  |  | www.kpmg.ca   

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED
PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors of TransAtlantic Petroleum Ltd.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (File No. 333-162814) on Form S-8 of TransAtlantic Petroleum Ltd. of our
report dated March 30, 2010 on the consolidated balance sheets of TransAtlantic Petroleum Ltd. as at December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss, stockholders equity (deficit) and
cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2009, which report appears in the 2009 annual report on Form 10-K of TransAtlantic Petroleum Ltd.

KPMG LLP (signed)

Chartered Accountants

Calgary, Canada

March 30, 2010

KPMG LLP is a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG

network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative.

KPMG Canada provides services to KPMG LLP.
##### 



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 8-K CURRENT REPORT Pursuant to Section 13 OR 15(d) of The Securities Exchange Act of 1934  Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported)
    
    OCTOBER 14, 2004
  NORTEL NETWORKS CORPORATION
  CANADA
    
    001-07260
    
    NOT APPLICABLE(State or other jurisdiction
of incorporation)
    
    (Commission
File Number)
    
    (IRS Employer
Identification No.)
 8200 DIXIE ROAD, SUITE 100, BRAMPTON, ONTARIO, CANADA
    
    L6T 5P6(Address of principal executive offices)
    
    (Zip Code)
  Registrants telephone number, including area code
    
    905-863-0000
  
 Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to
simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation
of the registrant under any of the following provisions (see General
Instruction A.2. below): [   ] Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17
CFR 230.425) [   ] Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
240.14a-12) [   ] Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the
Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b)) [   ] Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the
Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))




---



##### 



Item 2.02     Results of Operations and Financial Condition On October 14, 2004, the registrant issued a press release providing a status
update on its financial restatement process and other related matters. Such
press release is attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1 and furnished in accordance
with Item 2.02 of Form 8-K. Item 8.01     Other Events On October 14, 2004, the registrant issued the press release attached hereto as
Exhibit 99.1, and such press release is incorporated by reference herein (other
than information included on or linked from the registrants website,
referenced in such release, which is not incorporated by reference into this
report). Item 9.01     Financial Statements and Exhibits (c)     Exhibits 99.1          Press Release issued by the registrant on October 14, 2004.




---



##### 



SIGNATURES Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized. NORTEL NETWORKS CORPORATIONBy:
    /s/ William R. KerrWilliam R. KerrChief Financial OfficerBy:
    /s/ Blair F. MorrisonBlair F. MorrisonAssistant Secretary Dated: October 14, 2004




---



##### 



EXHIBIT INDEX Exhibit No.
    
    Description99.1
    
    
    Press Release issued by the registrant on October 14, 2004.
James E. Slayton, CPA
2858 West Market Street
Suite C
Akron, Ohio 44333

To Whom It May Concern:                                        March 3, 2000

The firm of  James E, Slayton, Certified  Public  Accountant consents to the
inclusion  of my  report of  December 31, 1999, on the Financial  Statements
of ALD Services, Inc. from the  inception date  of November 10, 1998 through
December 31, 1998 through  December 31, 1999,  and the years ending December
31, 1998  and  December 31, 1999 in any filings that are necessary now or in
the near future to be filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Professionally,

/s/James E. Slayton, CPA
Ohio License ID# 04-1-15582
#### Charles Baldwin, Respondent, v Gerard Avenue, LLC, et al., Defendants, and Austin Brothers, Inc., Appellant.

[871 NYS2d 121]

Orders, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sallie Manzanet-Daniels, J.), entered March 28, 2008, which precluded defendant Austin Brothers from contesting the existence of certain files considered material, directed a spoliation charge at trial with respect thereto, and precluded Austin from contesting the efficacy of repairs to stairs where the accident took place and from offering the testimony of its project manager at trial, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Austin has offered no excuse for repeated noncompliance with the court’s disclosure orders, conduct that was dilatory and “ultimately contumacious” *(Henry Rosenfeld, Inc. v Bower & Gardner,*161 AD2d 374, 374 [1990]). All Austin needed to do, in order to comply with the court’s July 16, 2007 discovery order, was to contact its former landlord and simply ask what had been done with the records. During deposition, Austin admitted that those records may have been sent to its storage facility in New Jersey, yet no effort was made to contact and inquire of that facility.

*485A party seeking a sanction such as preclusion or dismissal (CPLR 3126) is required to demonstrate that *“a*litigant, intentionally or negligently, dispose [d] of crucial items of evidence ... in [connection with] an accident before the adversary ha[d] an opportunity to inspect them” *(Kirkland v New York City Hous. Auth.,*236 AD2d 170, 173 [1997]), thus depriving the party seeking the sanction of the means for proving his claim *(see Kirschen v Marino,*16 AD3d 555, 556 [2005]). Necessary to this burden is a showing of prejudice. Plaintiff has made the requisite showing, as these records were crucial to his action. While Austin correctly argues that plaintiff has most of the records through pretrial discovery, the most important data—the name of the employee who made the repairs and any reports as to how they may have been made—remain missing.

Although Austin’s conduct was sufficiently dilatory and contumacious to warrant a CPLR 3126 sanction, the court, instead of striking the answer, issued a more lenient sanction, precluding Austin from contesting the existence of the missing file and the fact that repairs were made, and from offering the testimony of the project manager. The order was appropriately tailored to restore balance to the matter *(see Balaskonis v HRH Constr. Corp.,*1 AD3d 120, 121 [2003]). Austin was not precluded from offering any evidence as to the condition of the stairway at the time of the accident, nor was it absolutely precluded from offering the project manager’s testimony. Instead, the possibility of such testimony was held open to “further order of the court.” Austin was thus precluded only from using plaintiff’s lack of evidence to its own advantage *(see Jackson v City of New York,*185 AD2d 768, 770 [1992]).

The order directing a spoliation charge at trial was appropriate, given plaintiff’s October 11, 2005 letter that clearly put Austin on notice of the claim for personal injuries. Concur— Tom, J.P., Gonzalez, Buckley, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Gerardo Sanchez, Petitioner, v Paul I. Marx, Respondent. Washington Park Condominium, Nonparty Respondent.

[971 NYS2d 55]

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, inter alia, to compel the respondent Paul I. Marx, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Orange County, “to complete” a hearing to determine the propriety of service of process in an underlying civil action entitled *Washington Park Condominium v Foundry Dev. Co., Inc.,*pending in the Supreme Court, Orange County, under index No. 4484/10.

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act, and only where there exists a clear legal right to the relief sought *(see Matter of*
      *833
      *Legal Aid Socy. of Sullivan County v Scheinman,*53 NY2d 12, 16 [1981]). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Rivera, J.E, Balkin, Lott and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
AO 247 (Rev. 11/11) Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) Page 1 of 2 (Page 2 Not for Public Disclosure)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

United States of America

)

)

)

)

)

)

v.

Case No:

USM No:

Date of Original Judgment:

Date of Previous Amended Judgment:

(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Any) Defendant’s Attorney

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

Upon motion of the defendant the Director of the Bureau of Prisons the court under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) for a reduction in the term of imprisonment imposed based on a guideline sentencing range that has

subsequently been lowered and made retroactive by the United States Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 994(u), and having considered such motion, and taking into account the policy statement set forth at USSG §1B1.10

and the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), to the extent that they are applicable,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is:

DENIED. GRANTED and the defendant’s previously imposed sentence of imprisonment (as reflected in 

the last judgment issued) of months is reduced to .

(Complete Parts I and II of Page 2 when motion is granted)

Except as otherwise provided, all provisions of the judgment dated shall remain in effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Order Date:

Judge’s signature

Effective Date:

(if different from order date) Printed name and title

 Southern District of Alabama

KASHIF DEONDRE NORWOOD 06-00176-005

09553-003

02/15/2008

Pro Se

✔

✔

127 114 months

02/15/2008

12/22/2011 /s/ Callie V. S. Granade

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cr-00176-CG-N Document 793 Filed 12/22/11 Page 1 of 1
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute of Mental Health.

The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Institute of Mental Health, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute of Mental Health.                    

*Date:*                         February 3-4, 2015.                    

*Time:*                         9:00 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate personal qualifications and performance, and competence of individual investigators.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Porter Neuroscience Research Center, 35A Convent Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Jennifer E. Mehren, Ph.D., Executive Secretary, Division of Intramural Research Programs, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH, 35A Convent Drive, Room GE 412, Bethesda, MD 20892-3747, 301-496-3501,                         *mehrenj@mail.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.242, Mental Health Research Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

      ( print page 78455)    
Dated: December 22, 2014.

Carolyn Baum,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2014-30367 Filed 12-29-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Order entered September 5, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00248-CR

CARLOS DANIEL PADILLA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F16-59454-U

ORDER

Before the Court is court reporter Sasha S. Brooks’s August 30, 2018 request for an 

extension of time to file the reporter’s record. We GRANT the request and ORDER the 

reporter’s record filed on or before September 18, 2018. If Ms. Brooks fails to file the record by 

September 18, 2018, the Court will exercise its available remedies which may include ordering 

that she not sit until the complete reporter’s record is filed.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the 

Honorable Stephanie Mitchell, Presiding Judge, 291st Judicial District Court; Sasha S. Brooks, 

official court reporter, 291st Judicial District Court; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7719

KEVIN D. WALKER, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

AUTHUR SMITH, Department of Police; S. L. SCHULTZ, #2552; G. 

BRANDT, #1537; KNODE, Ofc.; DIETZ, Ofc.; CINDY MESSER SMITH, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. 

(1:07-cv-02717-RDB) 

Submitted: January 28, 2009 Decided: February 9, 2009 

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Kevin D. Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Douglas Peter, 

Hanover, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 Kevin D. Walker appeals the district court’s order 

granting summary judgment to Defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

(2000) civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. See Walker v. Smith, No. 1:07-cv-02717-

RDB (D. Md. Aug. 19, 2008). 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