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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6973

MICHAEL S. GORBEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of 

Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District 

Judge. (2:12-cv-00667-RAJ-TEM)

Submitted: September 26, 2013 Decided: September 30, 2013

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael S. Gorbey, Appellant Pro Se. Rosemary Virginia Bourne, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael S. Gorbey seeks to appeal the district court’s 

denial of his appeal from the magistrate judge’s order

substituting the proper party as Respondent to his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 (2006) petition and directing him to remedy filing 

deficiencies. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over 

final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory 

and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

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

46 (1949). The order Gorbey seeks to appeal is neither a final 

order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 20-3438

___________________________

William C. Thompson

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Nurse Kelley Hinely; Carla Cink, Food Prep Supervisor; Sheriff Tim Helder,

Washington County, Arkansas

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees

William Storey

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant

Dustin Sanders; Nurse Veronica Dockery

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville

 ____________

 Submitted: July 7, 2021

Filed: July 12, 2021 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

____________
 PER CURIAM.

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, William Thompson appeals the district court’s1

adverse grant of summary judgment. After careful review of the record and the

parties’ arguments on appeal, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

See Whitson v. Stone Cnty. Jail, 602 F.3d 920, 923 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing grant

of summary judgment de novo). See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Arkansas. 

-2-
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 Westford Technology Ventures, L.P.
(the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Jeffery T. Hamilton, Chief Executive Officer of the
Partnership, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Partnership.



/s/ Jeffrey T. Hamilton
-----------------------
Jeffery T. Hamilton
President, Hamilton Capital Management, Inc.

December 9, 2003
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2512 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2512

  To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain manufacturing 
                               equipment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

  Mr. Graham introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain manufacturing 
                               equipment.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN MANUFACTURING EQUIPMENT.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.84.85 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to certain manufacturing 
equipment) is amended--
            (1) by amending the article description to read as follows: 
        ``Extruders to be used in production of radial tires designed 
        for off-the-highway use with a rim measuring 63.5 cm or more in 
        diameter (such tires provided for in subheading 4011.20.10, 
        4011.61.00, 4011.63.00, 4011.69.00, 4011.92.00, 4011.94.40, or 
        4011.99.45), numerically controlled, or parts thereof (provided 
        for in subheading 8477.20.00 or 8477.90.85)''; and
            (2) by striking ``12/31/2009'' and inserting ``12/31/
        2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) apply to 
goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 
the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

JOSE LUIS CASTELLANOS-GARCIA, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 18-0266 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

Nos. CR2000-011803

The Honorable Christopher T. Whitten, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Respondent

Jose Luis Castellanos-Garcia, Florence

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones, Judge Michael J. Brown, and Judge Jon 

W. Thompson delivered the decision of the Court.

FILED 7-24-18
STATE v. CASTELLANOS-GARCIA

Decision of the Court

2

P E R C U R I A M:

¶1 Petitioner Jose Castellanos-Garcia seeks review of the 

superior court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed 

pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is the 

petitioner’s first petition. 

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this Court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. 

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 576-77, ¶ 19 (2012). It is the petitioner’s 

burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion in denying the 

petition. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. We find that petitioner has not shown any abuse of discretion. 

¶4 Accordingly, we grant review and deny relief.
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 23.2

   CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

        We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-18945) pertaining to the 1992 Stock Incentive Plan,
as amended, and the Amended and Restated Directors Stock Option Plan and in the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-90524) pertaining to the 2002 Stock
Option Plan of Redhook Ale Brewery, Incorporated of our report dated January 23,
2004, except for the fourth paragraph of note 1, as to which the date is July 1,
2004, with respect to the financial statements of Redhook Ale Brewery,
Incorporated for the year ended December 31, 2003 included in this Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2005.

                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Seattle, Washington
March 29, 2006
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2536 

To suspend temporarily the duty on chromate(4-), [7-amino-3-[(3-chloro-2- 

hydroxy-5-nitrophenyl)azo]-4-hydroxy-2-naphthalenesulfonato(3-)][6- 

amino-4-hydroxy-3-[(2-hydroxy-5-nitro-3-sulfophenyl)azo]-2- 

naphthalenesulfonato(4-)]-, tetrasodium (p 96–1335). 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 30, 2009 

Mr. BURR introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on chromate(4-), [7-amino3-[(3-chloro-2-hydroxy-5-nitrophenyl)azo]-4-hydroxy-2- 

naphthalenesulfonato(3-)][6-amino-4-hydroxy-3-[(2-hydroxy-5-nitro-3-sulfophenyl)azo]-2- 

naphthalenesulfonato(4-)]-, tetrasodium (p 96–1335). 

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


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2536 IS

1 SECTION 1. CHROMATE(4-), [7-AMINO-3-[(3-CHLORO-2-HY2 DROXY-5-NITROPHENYL)AZO]-4-HYDROXY-2- 

3 NAPHTHALENESULFONATO(3-)][6-AMINO-4-HY4 DROXY-3-[(2-HYDROXY-5-NITRO-3- 

5 SULFOPHENYL)AZO]-2- 

6 NAPHTHALENESULFONATO(4-)]-, 

7 TETRASODIUM (P 96–1335). 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

9 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

10 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

11 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Chromate(4-), [7-amino-3- 

[(3-chloro-2-hydroxy-5- 

nitrophenyl)azo]-4-hydroxy-2- 

naphthalenesulfonato(3-)][6- 

amino-4-hydroxy-3-[(2-hydroxy-5-nitro-3- 

sulfophenyl)azo]-2- 

naphthalenesulfonato(4-)]-, 

tetrasodium (P 96–1335) 

(CAS No. 184719–87–7) 

(provided for in subheading 

3204.12.45) ........................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

12 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

13 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

14 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

15 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
DISMISS and Opinion Filed January 31, 2020 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-19-01287-CV OLIVA GIL, Appellant V. CITY OF KAUFMAN, KAUF MAN COUNTY, KAUFMAN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND TRINITY VALLEY COMM UNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, Appell ees On Appeal from the 422nd Judicial District Court Kaufman County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 102446-422 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burns, J ustice Whitehill, and Justice Nowe ll Opinion by Chief Justice Burns We questioned our jurisdiction over this appeal from the trial court’s “final order” as the clerk’s record did not reflect a final order, or any appealable order, had been signed. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (appeal may be taken only from final judgment or appealable order). In a letter brief, filed at our request, appellant agrees we lack jurisdiction. Because nothing before us demonstrates we have jurisdiction, w e dismiss the appeal and all pending motions. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(a).

191287F.P05 /Robert D. Burns, III/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE–2– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
OLIVA GIL, Appellant
No. 05-19-01287-CV V. CITY OF KAUFMAN, KAUFMAN COUNTY, KAUFMAN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND TRINITY VALLEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, Appellees On Appeal from the 422nd Judicial District Court, Kaufman County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 102446-422. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burns, Justices Whitehill and N owell participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.
Judgment entered January 31, 2020.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2747 

To amend the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 to provide 

consistent and reliable authority for, and for the funding of, the land 

and water conservation fund to maximize the effectiveness of the fund 

for future generations, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 6, 2009 

Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. BAUCUS) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 

1965 to provide consistent and reliable authority for, 

and for the funding of, the land and water conservation 

fund to maximize the effectiveness of the fund for future 

generations, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Land and Water Con5 servation Authorization and Funding Act of 2009’’. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2747 IS

1 SEC. 2. PERMANENT AUTHORIZATION; FULL FUNDING. 

2 (a) PURPOSES.—The purposes of the amendments 

3 made by subsection (b) are— 

4 (1) to provide consistent and reliable authority 

5 for, and for the funding of, the land and water con6 servation fund established under section 2 of the 

7 Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 

8 (16 U.S.C. 460l–5); and 

9 (2) to maximize the effectiveness of the fund 

10 for future generations. 

11 (b) AMENDMENTS.— 

12 (1) PERMANENT AUTHORIZATION.—Section 2 

13 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 

14 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l–5) is amended— 

15 (A) in the matter preceding subsection (a), 

16 by striking ‘‘During the period ending Sep17 tember 30, 2015, there’’ and inserting ‘‘There’’; 

18 and 

19 (B) in subsection (c)(1), by striking 

20 ‘‘through September 30, 2015’’. 

21 (2) FULL FUNDING.—Section 3 of the Land 

22 and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 

23 U.S.C. 460l–6) is amended to read as follows: 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2747 IS

1 ‘‘SEC. 3. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS. 

2 ‘‘Monies covered into the fund under section 2 shall 

3 be available for expenditure to carry out the purposes of 

4 this Act, without further appropriation.’’. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
**EXHIBIT      32**

**STATEMENT      REQUIRED BY 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OF      THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

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

| ·   | information                contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,                the                financial condition and results of operations of the Company on the                dates                and for the periods presented. |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| **/s/                Ng Chi Shing**                         |
|-------------------------------------------------------------|
| Ng                Chi Shing                                 |
| Director,                President, Chief Executive Officer |
|                                                        |
| **/s/                Ng Chi Shing**                         |
| Ng                Chi Shing                                 |
| Chief                Financial Officer                      |
|                                                        |
| August                14, 2007                              |
#### Jessica Book, Respondent, v Horizon Asset Management et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant. Jessica Book, Appellant, v Horizon Asset Management et al., Defendants, and Mark Wszolek, Respondent.

[966 NYS2d 368]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Anil C. Singh, J), entered December 22, 2011, which, in this action alleging, among other things, discrimination, denied the motion of defendants Horizon Asset Management and Linda Collins (the Horizon defendants) to change venue from Bronx County to New York County, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. Appeal from order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Julia Rodriguez, J.), entered June 18, 2012, which granted defendant Mark Wszolek’s motion to change venue from Bronx County to New York County, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

The untimeliness of the Horizon defendants’ motion to change venue is excusable because plaintiff’s counsel and pleadings misleadingly indicated that she resided in Bronx County *(see Mann v Janyear Trading Corp.,*83 AD3d 566 [1st Dept 2011]). Furthermore, the record shows that the Horizon defendants promptly moved to change venue after receiving medical records indicating that plaintiffs statements were misleading *(see id.).*

The Horizon defendants’ motion should have been granted on the merits. Defendants met their initial burden of showing that the venue chosen by plaintiff was improper, by submitting evi*662dence showing that she was residing in North Carolina at the time she commenced this action and had never previously lived in Bronx County *(see Castro v New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens,*52 AD3d 251, 251-252 [1st Dept 2008]). In opposition, plaintiff failed to submit documentary evidence demonstrating her residence in Bronx County *{id.*at 252). Indeed, she provided only a self-serving and conclusory affidavit stating that she moved into her sister’s apartment in the Bronx on an unspecified date in January 2011, the month she filed this action *{see Rivera v Jensen,*307 AD2d 229, 230 [1st Dept 2003]; *Martinez v Semicevic,*178 AD2d 228, 229 [1st Dept 1991]). This was insufficient to satisfy her burden to “establish a bona fide intent to retain Bronx County as a residence for some length of time and with some degree of permanency” *{Gladstone v Syvertson,*186 AD2d 400, 401 [1st Dept 1992] [internal quotation marks and brackets omitted]).

Given the foregoing determination, plaintiffs appeal, on the basis of law of the case, from the order entered June 18, 2012, which granted defendant Wszolek’s motion to change venue from Bronx County to New York County, is academic.

Concur— Andrias, J.E, Saxe, DeGrasse, Richter and Gische, JJ.
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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than June 17, 2009.

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis**                     (Jacqueline G. King, Community Affairs Officer) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:                

*1. Donald A. Hanson Family Trust, which consist of Donna L. Hanson, LeRoy, Minnesota, individually and as trustee of the Family Trust, Jeanie Rae Thorson, Rochester, Minnesota, as trustee of the Family Trust, Barbara Kay Billings, Cresco, Iowa, as trustee of the Family Trust, and Kristi Jo Jacobsen, Cannon Falls, Minnesota, as trustee of the Family Trust, as a group acting in concert;*                     to acquire and retain shares of First LeRoy Bancorporation, Inc., LeRoy, Minnesota, and thereby indirectly acquire and retain control of First State Bank Minnesota, LeRoy, Minnesota.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 29, 2009.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. E9-12896 Filed 6-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
* 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 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-40880

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARIA DEL CARMEN NUNEZ-CECENEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-01-CR-165-1

--------------------

July 12, 2002

Before DeMOSS, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Maria Del

Carmen Nunez-Cecenez (Nunez) has requested leave to withdraw as

counsel and has filed a brief as required by Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Nunez has not filed a response. 

Our independent review of the brief and record discloses no

nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, the motion for leave to

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further
No. 

-2-

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2.