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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6942

SAQUAN DEVEL HUSSEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ROY COOPER,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (5:14-hc-02075-FL)

Submitted: October 15, 2015 Decided: October 20, 2015

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Saquan Devel Hussey, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, 

III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Saquan Devel Hussey seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing as untimely 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 

Hussey 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 legal
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
#### Judith Bandler, Appellant, v Brian Bandler, Respondent.

[873 NYS2d 647]

*775In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lubell, J.), dated February 16, 2007, which, inter alia, granted her motion for leave to enter a money judgment in her favor and against the defendant only to the extent of granting her leave to enter a judgment in her favor and against the defendant in the principal sum of $1,372.30.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly credited the defendant’s child support account for the entire amount that he paid for certain mortgage-related expenses pertaining to the marital residence, pursuant to a pendente lite support order dated August 16, 2006, because the payment of the mortgage in addition to child support would have resulted in giving the plaintiff a double shelter allowance *(see Lauria v Lauria,*45 AD3d 535 [2007]; *Graham v Graham,*277 AD2d 423, 424 [2000]; *Krantz v Krantz,*175 AD2d 865, 866 [1991]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Fisher, J.E, Miller, Garni and Balkin, JJ., concur.
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DEWEY GRACEON SPRINKLE

No. 570P05

ORDER

The Attorney General’s Petition for Discretionary Review is allowed for the limited purpose of (1) vacating that portion of the Court of Appeals opinion ordering remand to the trial court for resentencing and (2) remanding to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of *State v. Timothy Earl Blackwell,*361 N.C. 41, - S.E.2d-(2006). The Court of Appeals opinion remains undisturbed in all other respects. Justice Timmons-Goodson recused.

By Order of the Court in Conference, this 19th day of December, 2006.

s/Newbv. J. For the Court
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

ChiefExecutive Officer & Chief Financial Officer Certification

 

 

                In connection with the filing ofthe Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 (the“Report”) by Independent Bankshares, Inc. (“Registrant”), each of theundersigned hereby certifies that:

 

1.               The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended, and

 

2.               The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of Registrant.

 

 

 

 

 
|   | /s/ Tom C. Nichols                                      |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Tom C. Nichols                                          |
|   | Chairman, President &  Chief Executive Officer      |
|   |                                                    |
|   |                                                    |
|   |                                                    |
|   |                                                    |
|   | /s/ Don E. Cosby                                        |
|   | Don E. Cosby                                            |
|   | Executive Vice President  & Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

----
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15D0070. KIMBERLYT.SPENCEv.GEORGIAFARMBUREAU MUTUAL

INSURANCE, et al..

Kimberly Spence filed suit in magistrate court against several defendants,

including Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance. The matter was transferred to

state court, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Spence

then filed this application for discretionary appeal.

The grant of summary judgment may be directly appealed. See OCGA § 9-11-

56 (h). Under OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (11), an application for discretionary appeal is

required where litigation begins in magistrate court and reaches the state court by

means of a de novo appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (11). But this provision applies,

by its terms, only where the state court exercises de novo review of the magistrate

court’s decision. Here, the trial court’s order indicatesthat case wastransferred from

magistrate court. Thus, OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (11) does not apply.

We will grant an otherwise timely application for discretionary appeal if the

lower court’s order is subject to direct appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (j). Accordingly,

this application is hereby GRANTED, and Spence shall have ten days from the date

of this order to file a notice of appeal with the trial court. If she has already filed a

notice of appeal in the trial court, she need not file a second notice. The clerk of the

trial court is DIRECTED to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to

the Court of Appeals.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

10/09/2014

October 09, 2014
##### 



(FAIRMONT LOGO) For immediate release
    
    Exhibit No. 99.1
 FAIRMONT HOTELS & RESORTS INC. TO PARTICIPATE IN SCOTIA CAPITAL CONFERENCE
 TORONTO, September 16, 2004- Fairmont Hotels & Resorts Inc. (FHR)(TSX/NYSE:
FHR) will participate in Scotia Capitals Eighth Annual Back to School
Conference to be held in Toronto on September 22, 2004. William R. Fatt, FHRs
Chief Executive Officer, will present at approximately 12:40 p.m. Eastern Time. Interested participants can access a live audio webcast of the presentation and
slide materials through FHRs website at www.fairmont.com/investor. A replay of
the presentation will be archived for 90 days. The webcast will last for
approximately 35 minutes. About Fairmont Hotels & Resorts Inc.
FHR is one of North Americas leading owner/operators of luxury hotels and
resorts. FHRs managed portfolio consists of 82 luxury and first-class
properties with more than 33,000 guestrooms in the United States, Canada,
Mexico, Bermuda, Barbados and the United Arab Emirates. FHR owns Fairmont
Hotels Inc., North Americas largest luxury hotel management company, as
measured by rooms under management, with 44 distinctive city center and resort
hotels such as The Fairmont San Francisco, The Fairmont Banff Springs and The
Fairmont Scottsdale Princess. FHR also owns Delta Hotels, Canadas largest
first-class hotel management company, which manages and franchises 38 city
center and resort properties in Canada. In addition to hotel management, FHR
holds real estate interests in 22 properties and an approximate 24% investment
interest in Legacy Hotels Real Estate Investment Trust, which owns 24
properties. -30- Contact:
    
    Emma Thompson
Executive Director Investor Relations
Tel: 416.874.2485
Email: investor@fairmont.com
Website: www.fairmont.com
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 MASS HYSTERIA ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY, INC on Form 10-K for the period ended November 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dan Grodnik, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(a)The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





Date:  March 16, 2010





By:
/s/ Daniel GrodnikDan GrodnikChief Executive Officer

Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                             739
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  2046
<PP&E>                                           10000
<DEPRECIATION>                                     235
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   12281
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                          11920
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          2106
<OTHER-SE>                                      (1746)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     12281
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  2997
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2997)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2997)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2997)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
================================================================================


                                                                    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 Arkson Nutraceuticals, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Periodic Report"),
I, David Roff, 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 Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in
         all material respects, the financial condition and results of
         operations of the Company.


                            Dated: December 17, 2009


                                /s/ "David Roff"


                                   David Roff
               Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
##### 



SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549
   FORM 6-K Report of Foreign Private Issuer Pursuant to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934  For the month of: February 2005
    
    Commission File No.: 1-11796
 MASONITE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION(Name of registrant) 1600 Britannia Road East
Mississauga, Ontario
L4W 1J2 (Address of Principal Executive Offices) PREMDOR INC.
(Former Name of Registrant) Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports under cover of Form
20-F or Form 40-F: Form 20-F o                    Form 40-F þ Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by
Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1): Yes o                    No þ Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by
Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7): Yes o                    No þ Indicate by check mark whether the registrant by furnishing the information contained in this Form
is also thereby furnishing the information to the Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934: Yes o                    No þ If Yes is marked, indicate the file number assigned to the registrant in connection with Rule
12g3-2(b): N/A




---



##### 



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, thereunto duly authorized. MASONITE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATIONDate:  February 10, 2005
    By:
    /s/ Harley UlsterName:
    Harley UlsterTitle:
    Executive Vice-President
and Secretary




---



##### 



-ii- EXHIBIT INDEX Exhibit
    
    Description of Exhibit99.1
    
    
    Press Release dated February 10, 2005
TIMOTHY JEROME LOWE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-1410

_____________________________/

Opinion filed January 6, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Ross Goodman, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Mark Graham Hanson, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

BENTON, WETHERELL, and SWANSON, JJ., CONCUR.
Certification
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of
Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of
title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned
officers of American Water Works Company, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
June 30, 2002 (the "Form 10-Q") of the Company fully
complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information
contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.

Dated: August 14, 2002	\s\ J. James Barr
	J. James Barr
	Chief Executive Officer



Dated: August 14, 2002	\s\ Ellen C. Wolf
	Ellen C. Wolf
	Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely
pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of
title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as
part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.


099999-0963-02784-NY01.2211846.1		08/13/02 8:18 AM
099999-0963-02784-NY01.2211846.1		08/13/02 8:18 AM
#### In the Matter of Larry Davis, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[824 NYS2d 574]

Proceding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Ulster County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a determination of respondent finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting harassment. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the determination at issue has been administratively reversed and all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner’s institutional record. As petitioner has received all the relief to which he is entitled, the matter must be dismissed as moot *(see Matter of Kalwasinski v Goord,*29 AD3d 1104, 1105 [2006]; *Matter of Hurley v Goord,*28 AD3d 981, 982 [2006]).

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Carpinello, Mugglin and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          27,574                  22,872
<SECURITIES>                                     3,919                   4,203
<RECEIVABLES>                                  154,195                 144,765
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (9,332)                 (9,627)
<INVENTORY>                                     77,276                  83,320
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               284,653                 274,835
<PP&E>                                         226,742                 218,732
<DEPRECIATION>                                (135,560)               (131,579)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 480,374                 467,295
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          190,088                 187,032
<BONDS>                                         62,916                  65,891
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           212                     208
<OTHER-SE>                                     217,704                 204,512
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   480,374                 467,295
<SALES>                                         77,448                  80,604
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               142,353                 140,053
<CGS>                                           52,263                  54,797
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   99,166                  99,709
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                25,421                  24,929
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,753                   2,244
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,667                  13,566
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,640                   4,884
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,027                   8,682
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,027                   8,682
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.47                    0.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.46                    0.42
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DESPERADOS, INC. and CYNTHIA L. PEREZ

No. 629A06

(Filed 9 November 2007)

Appeal and Error— preservation of issues — constitutional question — failure to raise in trial court

The constitutional issue addressed in the majority opinion of the Court of Appeals was not raised and preserved in the trial court and, therefore, was not properly before the Court of Appeals.

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 180 N.C. App. 378, 638 S.E.2d 4 (2006), vacating defendants’ convictions which resulted in judgments entered 13 January 2005 by Judge Thomas D. Haigwood in Superior Court, Beaufort County. Heard in the Supreme Court 17 October 2007.

*Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by John G. Barnwell, Assistant Attorney General, for the State-appellant.*

*Jeffrey S. Miller for defendant-appellees.*

PER CURIAM.

The constitutional issue addressed in the Court of Appeals’ majority opinion was not raised and preserved in the trial court and, therefore, was not properly before the Court of Appeals. N.C. R. App. *683P. 10(b)(1). Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals as to the constitutional issue is reversed, and the case remanded to the Court of Appeals for determination of the remaining issues on their merits.

REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

Justice HUDSON did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of -- ) 

) 

DRS Tactical Systems, Inc. ) 

) 

Under Contract No. Wl5P7T-04-D-G204 ) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

ASBCA No. 59769 

David Z. Bodenheimer, Esq. 

Mary Kate Healy, Esq. 

Crowell & Moring LLP 

Washington, DC 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 

Army Chief Trial Attorney 

CPT Harry M. Parent III, JA 

Trial Attorney 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: 8 July 2015 

/ MARK N. STEMPLER 

Administrative Judge 

Acting Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 59769, Appeal of DRS Tactical 

Systems, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREYD. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals