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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6961 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ANDREW JON TACAWY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CR01-285-PJM; CA-03-2338-PJM)

Submitted: September 16, 2004 Decided: September 23, 2004

Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrew Jon Tacawy, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah A. Johnston, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Andrew Jon Tacawy seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a

§ 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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 his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Tacawy 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

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-2000
<CASH>                                       3,682,013
<SECURITIES>                                16,581,600
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,546,974
<ALLOWANCES>                                    26,826
<INVENTORY>                                  5,125,872
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            28,793,053
<PP&E>                                      24,100,346
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,954,040
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              45,442,106
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,527,227
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,780,608
<OTHER-SE>                                  33,674,062
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                45,442,106
<SALES>                                      7,777,778
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,676,973
<CGS>                                        7,091,700
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               26,551,146
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             193,390
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (15,727,394)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (15,727,394)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (15,727,394)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.91)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.91)


</TABLE>
#### Henry H. Stults *ads.*James Buckelew.

Haines, J.

This case is fully within the rules declared in *the*case of *Ralph C. Stults*ads. *James Buckelew,*decided at this term, and for like reasons. The fourth plea and the new assignment must be stricken out, with the costs of this motion.

Ogden, J., concurred-
### M A N D A T E

TO THE 138TH DISTRICT COURT of CAMERON COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 19th day of

March, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Michael A. Alex, Appellant,

v.

Brownsville Independent School

District Appellee.

CAUSE NO. 13-14-00643-CV (Tr.Ct.No. 2010-DCL-8142-B)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

T HE T HIR T EE N T H C OURT OF A PP E A L S, h a v ing c o n s i d e red t h is c a u se o n

a p p e a l, c o n cl u d e s t h e a p p e a l s h o u l d b e d is m isse d

. T h e C o u rt o rd e rs t h e a p p e a l

DIS M I S SED in a cc o r d a n ce w ith its o p ini o n

. Cos t s o f t h e a p p e a l a re a d ju d g e d a g a inst

a p p e l l a n t.

W e f u r t h e r o rd e r t h is d e cis i o n c e rt i f i e d b e low f o r o b s e r v a n c e

.

      

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals

for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal

thereof affixed, at the City of Edinburg, Texas this 25th day of June, 2015.

Cecile Foy Gsanger, CLERK
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

I, Richard W. Koe, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of TigerLogic Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of TigerLogic Corporation for the periods presented
therein.

Date: November 12, 2010



By:

/s/    Richard W. KoeName:

Richard W. KoeTitle:

Interim President and Chief Executive Officer


I, Thomas Lim, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
TigerLogic Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of TigerLogic Corporation for the periods presented therein.

Date: November 12, 2010



By:

/s/    Thomas LimName:

Thomas LimTitle:

Chief Financial Officer
[Ryder Scott Company Letterhead] 

 

**Exhibit No. 23.3**

 

**Consent of Ryder Scott Company, L.P.**

 

As independent oil and gas consultants, Ryder Scott Company, L.P. hereby consents to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of PlainsExploration & Production Company, as well as in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in such Form 10-K/A, of information from our reserve reports for Plains Exploration and Production Company and subsidiaries(collectively, the Company) as of December 31, 2003, December 31, 2002, and December 31, 2001, and for 3TEC Energy Corporation as of December 31, 2002, and December 31, 2001, relating to the estimated quantities of certain of theCompany’s proved reserves of oil and gas and undiscounted and discounted future net income there from for the specific periods cited. We further consent to references to our firm under the heading “Supplemental reserve information(unaudited)”. 

 

 

Houston, Texas 

June 11, 2004
#### Maynard ARCHER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Brian FISCHER, Commissioner of the Department of Corrections, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 07-2657-pr.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

April 10, 2009.

Maynard Archer, Brooklyn, NY, pro se, on submission.

PRESENT: Hon. ROBERT D. SACK, Hon. B.D. PARKER, Circuit Judges and Hon. DENISE COTE, District Judge.*

*

 Honorable Denise Cote, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

SUMMARY ORDER

Maynard Archer, proceeding *in forma pauperis,*appeals from the judgment of the district court dismissing his amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The defendant-appellee, who was not served in this matter, did not appear in district court, and has not filed a brief in this Court. We assume the familiarity of the parties and counsel with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case, the opinions below, and the issues raised on this appeal.

We review a section 1915(e) dismissal *de novo. Giano v. Goord,*250 F.3d 146, 149-50 (2d Cir.2001). A *de novo*review of the record and relevant case law establishes that the district court properly dismissed Archer’s amended complaint. In his amended complaint, Archer challenged the loss of his “good-time credits” and sought monetary damages. The claim is barred by *Heck v. Humphrey,*512 U.S. 477, 487, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994) (holding that a section 1983 action seeking money damages is not cognizable if a favorable decision would “necessarily imply the invalidity of [a] conviction or sentence,” unless such conviction has previ*10ously been invalidated), and *Edwards v. Balisok,*520 U.S. 641, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997) (applying *Heck*to a suit challenging the procedural defects at a prison disciplinary proceeding at which an inmate’s good-time credits were revoked).

Archer’s claim on appeal that he is only challenging the allegedly inadequate procedures that resulted in the revocation of his good-time credits, and not the revocation itself, fails. The Supreme Court, in *Edwards,*rejected the distinction between claiming an improper procedure and claiming an improper result, because “it disregards the possibility, clearly envisioned by *Heck,*that the nature of the challenge to the procedures could be such as necessarily to imply the invalidity of the judgment.” *Edwards,*520 U.S. at 645, 117 S.Ct, 1584. The Supreme Court concluded that because the principal procedural defect complained of by Edwards “would, if established, necessarily imply the invalidity of the deprivation of his good-time credits,” *id.*at 646, 117 S.Ct. 1584, Edwards’ suit was not cognizable under section 1983. *Id.*at 646-49, 117 S.Ct. 1584. In light of the fact that Archer’s challenge to the district court’s ruling is foreclosed by principles articulated by the Supreme Court, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 21-0067

_________________

STATE OF MONTANA,

 Plaintiff and Appellee,

 v.

MICHAEL DEAN ALBERT,

 Defendant and Appellant.

O R D E R

_________________

On June 30, 2021, this Court returned Appellant’s opening brief for failure to 

comply with M. R. App. P. 12 (1)(c), (d), and (h) and ordered Appellant to correct the brief 

and file it no later than 20 days from the date of the Order. Appellant has not filed a 

corrected brief in accordance with this Court’s Order. 

THEREFORE,

IT IS ORDERED that Appellant shall prepare, file, and serve the opening brief on 

appeal no later than September 8, 2021. Failure to file the brief within that time will result 

in dismissal of this appeal with prejudice and without further notice. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to Appellant Michael Dean 

Albert personally and to all counsel of record. 

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 19 2021

08/19/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0067
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Montel N. Wilson, Also Known as “Yams,” Appellant.

[975 NYS2d 767]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Greller, J.), rendered June 5, 2012, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 220.60 [3]; 470.05 [2]; *People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]; *People v Claudio,*64 NY2d 858 [1985]; *People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636, 637 [1983]; *People v Barrett,*105 AD3d 862, 863 *970[2013]). Moreover, the “rare case” exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here because the defendant’s allocution did not cast significant doubt on his guilt, negate an essential element of the crime, or call into question the voluntariness of his plea *(People v Lopez,*71 NY2d at 666; *People v Stone,*91 AD3d 977, 977 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]). In any event, the facts admitted by the defendant during his plea allocution were sufficient to support his plea of guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree *(see People v Goldstein,*12 NY3d 295, 301 [2009]; *People v Seeber,*4 NY3d 780, 781 [2005]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the imposition of a $50 DNA databank fee at the time of sentencing was not illegal. The defendant was convicted of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, a “[designated offen[se]” as defined by Executive Law § 995 (7), which triggered the imposition of a $50 DNA databank fee *(see*Penal Law § 60.35 [1] [a] [v]; *People v Cooper,*88 AD3d 1009, 1010 [2011]). Accordingly, the County Court properly imposed the $50 DNA databank fee at the time of sentencing. Skelos, J.P, Dickerson, Lott and Austin, JJ., concur.
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 Housing and Urban Development

          - [Docket No. FR-5280-N-41]

# AGENCY:

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.

# DATES:

Effective Date: October 23, 2009.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathy Ezzell, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 7262, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in                     *National Coalition for the Homeless*                     v.                     *Veterans Administration,*                     No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist                           ( print page 54841)                        the homeless. Today's Notice is for the purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been determined suitable or unsuitable this week.                

Dated: October 15, 2009.

Mark R. Johnston,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs.

[FR Doc. E9-25214 Filed 10-22-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
Exhibit 11.2

                             EQUIVEST FINANCE, INC.
                        Computation of Earnings Per Share

                  For the Nine Months Ended September 30, 1999
                  --------------------------------------------
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                  Income            Shares      Per-Share
                                               (Numerator)       (Denominator)    Amount
                                               -----------       -------------    ------
<S>                                            <C>                <C>             <C>
Net Income                                     $ 7,254,114
Less: Preferred Stock dividends                   (450,000)
                                               -----------
Basic earnings per share:
  Income available to common stockholders        6,804,114        25,528,607      $ .27
                                                                                  =====

Effect of dilutive securities:
  Warrants                                                            88,077
  Stock options                                                      414,461
                                               -----------       -----------
Diluted earnings per share:
  Income available to common stockholders
    plus assumed conversions                   $ 6,804,114        26,031,145      $ .26
                                               ===========       ===========      =====
</TABLE>

                  For the Nine Months Ended September 30, 1998
                  --------------------------------------------
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                       Income            Shares      Per-Share
                                                    (Numerator)       (Denominator)    Amount
                                                    -----------       -------------    ------
<S>                                                 <C>                <C>             <C>
Net Income                                          $ 3,909,644
Less: Preferred Stock dividends                        (450,454)

Basic earnings per share:
  Income available to common stockholders             3,459,190        22,272,673      $ .16
                                                                                       =====

Effect of dilutive securities:
  12.5% Redeemable Convertible preferred stock              454             4,490
  Warrants                                                                 91,005
  Stock options                                                           380,751
                                                    -----------      ------------

Diluted earnings per share:
  Income available to common stockholders
    plus assumed conversions                        $ 3,459,644        22,748,919      $ .15
                                                    ===========       ===========      =====
</TABLE>


                                       28
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
    <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width" />
    <meta name="robots" content="noindex">
    <title>Copyright - NIDDK</title>
    
<meta name="VIcurrentDateTime" content="638490787421010809" />
<meta name="VirtualFolder" content="/" />
<script type="text/javascript" src="/layouts/system/VisitorIdentification.js"></script>

</head>
<body>
    <div></div>
</body>
</html>
Exhibit 3.07 CERTIFICATE OF ELIMINATION OF
SERIES B JUNIOR PARTICIPATING PREFERRED STOCK OF
MARTEK BIOSCIENCES CORPORATION Pursuant to the provisions of Section 151(g) of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, it is hereby
certified that: 1. The name of the corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) is Martek Biosciences Corporation. 2. The designation of the series of shares of stock of the Corporation to which this certificate relates is
Series B Junior Participating Preferred Stock. 3. The voting powers, designations, preferences, and the relative, participating, optional, or other rights, and
the qualifications, limitations, and restrictions of said series of shares of stock were provided for in a resolution
adopted by the Board of Directors of the Corporation pursuant to authority expressly vested in it by the provisions of
the certificate of incorporation of the Corporation. A certificate setting forth the said resolution has been
heretofore filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware pursuant to the provisions of Section 151(g) of
the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware. 4. The Board of Directors of the Corporation has adopted the following resolutions: RESOLVED, that pursuant to the authority conferred upon the Board of Directors by the provisions of
the Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation and by Section 151(g) of the DGCL, effective upon
September 30, 2008, the date on which the Corporation will have redeemed the Rights issued pursuant
to the Corporations 2006 Rights Agreement, the Board of Directors hereby eliminates the Series B
Junior Participating Preferred Stock authorized by the Corporation, none of which is currently
outstanding and none of which will be issued in the future, and that all matters set forth in the
Certificate of Designation with respect to such Series B Junior Participating Preferred Stock be
eliminated from the Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation; FURTHER RESOLVED, that the appropriate officers of the Corporation be and they hereby are authorized
and directed to prepare, execute and file a Certificate of Elimination of Series B Junior
Participating Preferred Stock and to take such other actions as they in their sole discretion may
deem necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of the foregoing resolution. Signed on December 24, 2008 /s/ David M.
Feitel

David M. Feitel

Senior Vice President
and General Counsel
#### Savannah, Florida & Western Railway Co. *v.*Brooks.

The evidence warranted ihe .verdict, and there was no error by the court for which a new trial should be granted.

August 20, 1894.

*Judgment affirmed,.*

Complaint. Before Judge Sweat. Charlton superior court. April term, 1893.

Erwin, duBignon & Chisholm and Hitch & Myers, for plaintiff in error.

This suit was for the value of goods burned in defendant’s warehouse, as plaintiff claimed, by gross negligence of defendant’s servants. The jury found for the plaintiff, and defendant’s motion for a new trial was overruled.