alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24

- 1061

WALLACE WORMACK; LAKEISHA JONES; CAROLYN MARSHALL , Plaintiffs

- Appellants ,

v. CAESARS BALTIMORE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC , Defendant

- Appellee,
and CBAC GAMING, LLC; CBAC BORROWER, LLC; CVPR GAMING HOLDINGS, LLC; PRT TWO, LLC; CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; CBAC HOLDING COMPANY, LLC; CAESARS BALT I MORE INVESTMENT COMPANY, LLC; CAESARS ENTERPRISE SERVICES, LLC; CAESARS LICENSE COMPANY, LLC, d/b/a Horseshoe Baltimore Casino; STRON

- MD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; ROCK GAMING, LLC; JACK ENTERTAINMENT, LLC; JACK ENTERTAINMENT IP, LLC; CR BALT I MORE HOLDINGS, LLC , Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Stephanie A. Gallagher , District Judge. ( 1:22

- cv - 01108

- SAG )

Submitted : June 25 , 2024 Decided: June 27, 2024

Before RICHARDSON and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER , Senior Circuit Judge

. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1061 Doc: 13 Filed: 06/27/2024 Pg: 1 of 32 Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Wallace Wormack, Lakeisha Jones, Carolyn Marshall, Appellants Pro Se. Robert L. Hebb, Richard Medoff, SEMMES, BOWEN & SEMMES, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee Caesars Baltimore Management Company, LLC

.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1061 Doc: 13 Filed: 06/27/2024 Pg: 2 of 33 PER CURIAM: Wallace Wormack, Lakeisha Jones, and Carolyn Marshall ( collectively, “Appellants”) appeal the district court’s order granting Defendant’s (a) motion in limine to preclude their expert witness testimony; and (b) motion for summary judgment in Appellants’ removed civil action alleging negligence/premises liability claims arising under Maryland law. We confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Appellants’ informal brief does not challenge the district court ’ s rationale for granting the motion in limine , they have forfeited appellate review of this portion of the court ’ s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). As to the grant of summary judgment, w e have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court ’s
order

. Wormack v. Caesars Balt. Mgmt. Co., LLC , No. 1:22

- cv - 01108

- SAG (D. Md. Jan. 2, 2024)

. 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.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 24-1061 Doc: 13 Filed: 06/27/2024 Pg: 3 of 3
#### Harriet Levine, Respondent, v Deposits Only, Inc., Appellants.

[872 NYS2d 149]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Parga, J.), dated March 20, 2008, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and granted the *698plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted, and the plaintiffs cross motion is denied as academic.

This action arises from a collision involving a motor vehicle operated by the plaintiff and a truck owned by the defendant Deposits Only, Inc., and operated by the defendant Robert Kellett.

The defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345, 352 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]; *D'Alba v Yong-Ae Choi,*33 AD3d 650 [2006]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiffs medical submissions failed to address the finding of the defendants’ examining radiologist that the condition of the plaintiffs cervical and lumbar spines and right shoulder resulted from preexisting degeneration and was not caused by the subject accident *(see Larkin v Goldstar Limo Corp.,*46 AD3d 631 [2007]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants’ motion and denied the plaintiffs cross motion as academic. Fisher, J.E, Miller, Garni and Balkin, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-21042

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 27, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Marjorie A. Meyers, *680Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Ronald Gonzalez appeals his aggregate sentence of 135 months of imprisonment following his guilty-plea convictions for six counts of distribution of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(B) and (b)(1), and two counts of possession of child pornography involving the sexual exploitation of minors, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(5)(B) and (b)(2), 2256(8)(A)-(C). On appeal, Gonzalez argues that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court relied only on the sentencing range calculated under the Sentencing Guidelines and failed to consider the other sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

The Government argues that Gonzalez’s appeal is a challenge to the district court’s refusal to impose a requested “non-Guidelines sentence”; the Government asserts that the district court’s refusal constitutes the denial of a motion for downward departure and, as such, it is unreviewable. Gonzalez, however, makes it clear that he is challenging the reasonableness of the guidelines sentence that the district court ultimately imposed.

We review sentences imposed for “unreasonableness.” *United States v. Mares,*402 F.3d 511, 518 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 43, 163 L.Ed.2d 76 (2005). A sentence within a properly calculated guidelines range is presumed reasonable. *United States v. Alonzo,*435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir.2006). Gonzalez does not challenge the calculation of the guidelines range; he argues that his sentence is not reasonable because the district court failed to consider all of the factors of § 3553(a). Our review of the record persuades us that these factors were raised and properly considered by the district court at sentencing. Gonzalez has not rebutted the presumption that the guidelines sentence was reasonable.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### In the Matter of General Electric Company, Appellant, v Assessor of the Town of Rotterdam et al., Respondents. (And Another Related Proceeding.)

Submitted January 12, 2009;

decided February 24, 2009

Motion by the Institute for Professionals in Taxation for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the motion for reargument herein granted and the brief is accepted as filed *[see*11 NY3d 711 (2008)].

Chief Judge Lippman and Judge Read taking no part.
##### 



(PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LETTERHEAD) CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
ACCOUNTANTS We hereby consent to the use
in this Registration Statement on Form F-9 of our report dated
February 11, 2004 to the shareholders of Barrick Gold
Corporation relating to the consolidated balance sheets as at
December 31, 2003 and December 31, 2002 and the
consolidated statements of income, cash flows and shareholders equity
and comprehensive income for each of the years in the three year
period ended December 31, 2003 of Barrick Gold Corporation
prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting
principles, which appear in such Registration Statement. We also
consent to the reference to us under the heading Experts
in such Registration Statement. /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP
Toronto, Canada
November 1, 2004              PricewaterhouseCoopers
refers to the Canadian firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and the
other member firms of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited,
each of which is a separate and independent legal entity.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Norman McBride, Appellant.

Submitted July 6, 2009;

decided August 27, 2009

Reported below, 59 AD3d 151.

*735Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Richard M. Greenberg, Esq., Office of the Appellate Defender, 11 Park Place, Suite 1601, New York, NY 10007 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

                                  EXHIBIT 32.2

            In  connection   with  the  Quarterly   Report  of  Mountains   West
Exploration,  Inc. (the  "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31,
2006 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof
(the "Report").

            I, Douglas Stukel,  Treasurer and principal financial officer of the
Company,  certify,  pursuant  to 18 USC  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.




                                             /S/ DOUGLAS STUKEL
                                             ___________________________________
                                             Douglas Stukel, Treasurer
                                             (principal financial officer)
Dated: May 22, 2006
<PAGE>


                                    FORM 6-K

                                  UNITED STATES
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

                        REPORT OF FOREIGN PRIVATE ISSUER

                        PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-16 OR 15d-16
                     OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

                           For the month of July, 2004

                        Commission File Number 333-101591

                          GERDAU AMERISTEEL CORPORATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 (Translation of registrant's name into English)


                              5100 W. Lemon Street
                                   Suite 3100
                              Tampa, Florida 33609
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    (Address of principal executive offices)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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          Form 40-F   X

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): ______

   Indicate by check mark whether by furnishing the information contained in
  this Form, the registrant is also thereby furnishing the information to the
Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

                            Yes         No   X

If "Yes" is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the registrant in
                  connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): 82- ________


<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT INDEX


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Exhibit        Description
-------        -----------

<S>            <C>
99.1           Press release dated July 26, 2004

</TABLE>


<PAGE>


                                   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.

Date:  July 29, 2004

                                     GERDAU AMERISTEEL CORPORATION


                                     By:      /s/ Tom J. Landa
                                              ----------------------------------
                                     Name:    Tom J. Landa
                                     Title:   Vice President, Chief Financial
                                              Officer and Secretary
**Exhibit 23**
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on FormS-3 (No. 333-97819, No. 333-113026) and Form S-8 (No. 333-63760, No. 333-75162, No. 333-103969)of Odyssey Re Holdings Corp. of our report dated March 4, 2005 relating to the financialstatements, financial statement schedules, management’s assessment of the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting, which appears in the Form 10-K.
     We also consent to the reference to us under the heading “Selected Financial Data” in this Form10-K.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel Robert QUEEN, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-7077.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 17, 2006.

Decided: Oct. 23, 2006.

Samuel Robert Queen, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appel-lee.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Samuel Robert Queen, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); *Reid v. Ange-lone,*369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Queen has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

*470Additionally, we construe Queen’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. *United States v. Winestock,*340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255 (2000). Queen’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.

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.*
#### In the Matter of Kamleh S. Tehan, Individually and as Executrix of Robert J. Tehan, Respondent, v Tehan’s Catalog Showrooms, Inc., Appellant.

[972 NYS2d 808]

*1499Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (Patrick F. MacRae, J.), entered September 21, 2012. The order denied the motion of respondent for summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner, in her capacity as the executor of the estate of her husband (decedent), commenced this proceeding pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1104-a seeking, inter alia, a determination that she is the owner of shares in respondent corporation held by decedent at the time of his death and dissolution of respondent. As relevant on appeal, Supreme Court denied that part of respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition based on petitioner’s lack of standing *(see*CPLR 3211 [a] [3]; 3212), without prejudice to renew upon completion of discovery. Based on the record before us, we conclude that the court properly denied respondent’s motion to that extent. There are issues of fact whether and to what extent the parties performed their obligations under the applicable shareholders’ agreement or whether the parties elected to abandon that agreement *(see Carver v Apple Rubber Prods. Corp.,*163 AD2d 849, 850 [1990]; *Staebell v*Bennie, 83 AD2d 765, 765-766 [1981]; *see generally*CPLR 3212 [f]). Finally, respondent’s contention that the court should have conducted an immediate trial pursuant to CPLR 3212 (c) to resolve all issues related to standing is raised for the first time on appeal and is therefore not properly before us *(see generally Ciesinski v Town of Aurora,*202 AD2d 984, 984 [1994]). Present — Smith, J.P., Fahey, Sconiers, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.
##### 



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)
    
    JANUARY 6, 2005
 NORTEL NETWORKS CORPORATION    CANADA(State or other jurisdictionof incorporation)
    
    001-07260(CommissionFile Number)
    
    NOT APPLICABLE(IRS EmployerIdentification No.)8200 DIXIE ROAD, SUITE 100, BRAMPTON, ONTARIO, CANADA(Address of principal executive offices)
    
    L6T 5P6(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):  o
    
    Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)o
    
    Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))o
    
    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 January 6, 2005, the registrant issued a press release providing a status update on its and
Nortel Networks Limiteds 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 January 6, 2005, 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 January 6, 2005.




---



##### 



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/ Gordon A. DaviesGordon A. DaviesAssistant General Counsel 
Securitiesand Corporate Secretary Dated: January 7, 2005




---



##### 



EXHIBIT INDEX Exhibit No.
    
    Description99.1
    
    Press Release issued by the registrant on January 6, 2005.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 1223

RALPH TREY JOHNSON; et al.

v.

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, et al.

National Collegiate Athletic Association;

Cornell University; Fordham University;

Lafayette College; Sacred Heart University;

Villanova University,

Appellants

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

The precedential opinion issued on July 11, 2024 is further amended. Amicus Appellee

Professor Michael H. LeRoy’s surname was incorrectly listed as Leroy. The opinion is

amended to correctly reflect the correct surname LeRoy.

For the Court,

PATRICIA S. DODSZUWEIT,

Clerk

Date: July 25, 2024

cc: All Counsel of Record
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 Quarterly Report of Diamond Technologies Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Vince Leitao, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 Dated this 31st day of March 2010.
 
 VINCE LEITAOVince Leitao

Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Michael J. Andrews, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of MicroIslet, 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;

Date: April 24, 2008
                                            /s/ Michael J. Andrews
                                            -----------------------------------
                                            Michael J. Andrews
                                            Chief Executive Officer and
                                            Acting Chief Financial Officer
                                            (Principal Executive Officer and
                                             Principal Financial Officer)