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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-6726

HENRY L. ROBINSON, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

ROBERT H. MAUNCY, Warden, Northside Correctional 

Institution, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (8:07-cv-00061-SB) 

Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: October 27, 2008 

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Henry L. Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

Henry L. Robinson seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. We 

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice 

of appeal was not timely filed. 

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of 

the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends 

the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the 

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2107 (2000). This appeal period is “mandatory and 

jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 

264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 

(1960)). Accord Bowles v. Russell, 127 S. Ct. 2360 (2007). 

The district court’s order was entered on the docket 

on March 24, 2008. The notice of appeal was filed on April 30, 

2008.* Because Robinson failed to file a timely notice of appeal 

or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 

 *

For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date 

appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could 

have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to 

the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 

(1988). 

2 
3 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.1











CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF


THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2004






In connection with the Quarterly Report of Hybred International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gary Kouletas, President of the Company, respectfully certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2004, that:




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




The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.






/s/ Gary Kouletas


Gary Kouletas


President (Principal Executive Officer)






Date: ......................, 2011






This Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Hybred International, Inc. and will be retained by Hybred International, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-07-00499-CV

Jose Fernandez Galan Palau, Appellant

v.

Flor De Maria Navarro Sanchez, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 353RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-FM-06-002234, HONORABLE LORA J. LIVINGSTON, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss his appeal, stating that the trial court’s later

ruling rendered the appeal moot. Appellee, who earlier filed a motion seeking to have the appeal

dismissed for want of jurisdiction, has filed a motion opposing the dismissal of the appeal until we

assess sanctions against appellant. We overrule appellee’s motion for sanctions, but will assess all

costs on appeal against appellant. We grant appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal. Tex. R.

App. P. 42.1(a)(2). We further grant Susan Norman’s emergency motion to withdraw as appellant’s

counsel, leaving appellant’s additional retained attorney, Andres P. Chaumont, as counsel.

___________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Pemberton

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: November 16, 2007
#### Francis McGill et al., Respondents, v Fariha T. Qudsi, Appellant.

Submitted July 2, 2012;

decided September 11, 2012

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
No. 4756.

(Court of Appeal, Parish of Orleans.)

#### HENRY T. ROUX vs. R. L. WITZMANN AND I. ADORNO.

January 10, 1910.

Jos. A .Casey, Chas. Rosen for plaintiff and appellee.

H. B. McMurray, Jr., for defendant and appellant.

ST. PAUL, J.

The question of law involved in this case is certified to the Supreme Court.

*234February 9, 1910.

ST. PAUL, J. — This case was certified to the Supreme Court, and the question submitted whether under Act 68 of 1908 the holder and discounter of the note sued on can recover the face .value thereof notwithstanding that the note had been discounted at a higher rate of interest than *8%.*

That Court answered that “the note sued on is not usurious. *”*This entitles plaintiff to an affirmance of the judgment appealed from.

Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 23





                    CONSENT OF DELOITTE & TOUCHE, LLP

We consent to the  incorporation  by reference  in  Registration  Statement  No.
333-80147 of Washington Mutual Finance  Corporation  (formerly known as Aristar,
Inc.)  and  subsidiaries  on Form  S-3 of our  report  dated  January  18,  2000
appearing  in this  Annual  Report on Form  10-K of  Washington  Mutual  Finance
Corporation for the year ended December 31, 1999.





Deloitte & Touche LLP
Tampa, Florida
March 30, 2000
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GLADGER ROSS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

ANGEL ORTIZ; MATTHEW BROWN,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 13-56662

D.C. No. 5:10-cv-01606-SJO-JPR

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 5, 2014** 

Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. 

Former federal prisoner Gladger Ross appeals pro se from the district court’s

summary judgment in his action arising under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named

Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging deliberate

indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §

FILED

DEC 12 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.

2004), and we affirm. 

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Ross failed

to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were

deliberately indifferent to his wrist fracture. See id. at 1057-60 (a prison official

acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an

excessive risk to a prisoner’s health; negligence and a mere difference in medical

opinion are insufficient); see also McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1060 (9th

Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d

1133 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (“A defendant must purposefully ignore or fail to

respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need in order for deliberate

indifference to be established.”). 

We do not consider the contentions in the reply brief concerning Dr. Redix’s

statements to Ross after his wrist surgery or any other contention that was not

presented to the district court. See United States. v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th

Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of

the record on appeal.”). 

AFFIRMED.

2 13-56662
#### In the Matter of Christopher B., an Infant. Melvin B., Appellant; Saint Dominic’s Home, Respondent.

[976 NYS2d 661]

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Kelly O’Neill Levy, J.), entered on or about January 28, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, upon a fact-finding determination that appellant-father is presently and for the foreseeable future unable by reason of mental illness to provide proper and adequate care for his child, terminated his parental rights, *520and transferred custody and guardianship of the child to the Commissioner of Social Services and petitioner Saint Dominic’s Home, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Clear and convincing evidence, including expert testimony from a court-appointed psychologist, who examined the father on two occasions and reviewed all of his available medical records, supported the determination that he is presently and for the foreseeable future unable, by reason of mental illness, to provide proper and adequate care for his child *(see*Social Services Law § 384-b [6] [a]). The father had periods of noncompliance with his medications and exhibited symptoms regularly, whether or not he was compliant with treatment *(see Matter of Justin Javonte R. [Leticia W.],*103 AD3d 524 [1st Dept 2013]). Concur — Tom, J.E, Andrias, Saxe, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.
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 110 Media Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2006 (the "Report"), I, Raymond
Barton, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 Company.


/s/ William Mobley
----------------------------------
William Mobley
Chief Executive Officer
November 10, 2006

A signed original of this certification has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 12

<TABLE>
Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges (Unaudited)
(Dollars in millions)
<CAPTION>

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            1995       1994       1993      1992       1991
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                    <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>       <C>
Profit Before Tax                       $     29.4 $     38.8 $     56.8 $    50.2 $     29.4
Income (Loss) of 50% owned
  subsidiaries                                (0.8)       0.3        2.0       3.1        1.9
Dividends received from less
  than 50% owned subsidiaries                  2.6        1.6        1.3       2.4        0.4

Interest Expense                              44.9       44.9       37.4      38.6       39.8
25% of Rent Expense                            3.9        3.2        3.2       2.7        2.6
                                        ---------- ---------- ---------- --------- ----------
 Total Fixed Charges                          48.8       48.1       40.6      41.3       42.4
Pre-tax earnings required to
  cover Preferred Dividends                    0.0        0.0        0.0      10.2       15.2
                                        ---------- ---------- ---------- --------- ----------
Total Fixed Charges and
 Preferred Dividends                          48.8       48.1       40.6      51.5       57.6
                                        ========== ========== ========== ========= ==========


Earnings Before Income Taxes and
 Fixed Charges                          $     79.5 $     88.8 $    100.7 $    97.0 $     74.1
                                        ========== ========== ========== ========= ==========



Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges        1.6 to 1   1.8 to 1   2.5 to 1  2.3 to 1   1.7 to 1

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed
 Charges and Preferred Dividends          1.6 to 1   1.8 to 1   2.5 to 1  1.9 to 1   1.3 to 1


<FN>
Note 1: For purposes of calculating the ratio of earnings to fixed
        charges, "earnings" consist of earnings from continuing operations
        before income taxes, adjusted for the portion of fixed charges
        deducted from such earnings.  "Fixed charges" consist of interest
        on all indebtedness (including capital lease obligations and
        capitalized interest), amortization of debt expense and the
        percentage of rental expense on operating leases deemed
        representative of the interest factor.
<FN>
Note 2: The ratios of earnings to fixed charges, before the restructuring
        and special charges, for 1995 and 1994 were 1.9 to 1 and 2.4 to 1,
        respectively.
<FN>
Note 3: The above computations do not include any fixed charges related to
        the Company's guarantee of debt for Calspan SRL Corporation.  The
        debt guarantee was $22.9 million at September 29, 1995 and $20.7
        million at December 31, 1995.

</TABLE>
#### Larry Carr, Appellant, v Pamela D. Hayes et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

Submitted June 11, 2012;

decided June 28, 2012

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied with $100 costs and necessary reproduction disbursements [see 19 NY3d 802 (2012)].
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICER REGARDING PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS



I, Steven A. Schumm, the Chief Administrative Officer of Enstar Income/Growth Program Six-A, L.P. (the "Partnership") in compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that, the Partnership's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2004 (the "Report") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission:

- fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
- the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

/s/  Steven A. SchummSteven A. SchummChief Administrative OfficerMay 17, 2004
EXHIBIT 32.2



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 Apogent Technologies Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dennis Brown, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (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/    DENNIS BROWNDennis Brown Chief Financial Officer May 10, 2004




This certification accompanies
this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Exhibit 32.1



MPHASE TECHNOLGIES, INC.



CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report of mPhase Technologies, Inc., a New Jersey corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Ronald A. Durando, Chief Executive Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to his knowledge:



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, I all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ Ronald A. Durando



Ronald A. Durando

Chief Executive Officer



May 14, 2007



---
<PAGE>
                                       1

 
                                 PROMISSORY NOTE
                               Clearwater, Florida
                                 August 31, 1998

     FOR  VALUE  RECEIVED,  Medical  Technology  Laboratories,  Inc.,  a Florida
corporation,  whose address is 12920 Automobile Boulevard,  Clearwater,  Florida
34622 (the  "Obligor"),  hereby  promises to pay to James L.  McKeown,  Sr. (the
"Holder") 51% of the purchase price payments as described in Section 3(a) of the
Asset Acquisition Agreement,  dated August 4, 1998 (the "Agreement"),  a copy of
which is attached to this Note as Exhibit A, subject to any setoffs, payments or
amounts placed in escrow in accordance with the Agreement.

     An event of default will occur under this Note if the Obligor fails to make
a payment before 5:00 p.m.,  eastern time, on the day such payment is due as set
forth in Section 3(a) of the Agreement. An event of default under this Note will
become a  default  if not cured  within  three  days of notice of such  event of
default is  conveyed by the Holder to the  Obligor.  If this Note is in default,
the outstanding  purchase price payment shall bear interest at a rate of 10% per
annum.  The  Obligor  shall pay all costs of  collection,  including  reasonable
attorneys  fees, as well as all accrued  interest.  This Note is secured by, and
subject to, the Agreement between the Obligor and the Holder.

     The  Obligor and any other  party  liable for the  payment  under this Note
hereby waive presentment,  protest and demand,  notice of protest, and dishonor.
The  Obligor  and any other  party  liable for the  payment of this Note  hereby
expressly  consent to any extensions and renewals,  in whole or in part, and all
delays in time of  performance  which the  Holder may grant at any time and from
time to time,  without  limitation and without any notice or further  consent of
such persons.

     No failure by the Holder to exercise any right or remedy shall be deemed to
be a waiver or release of such right or remedy, and any waiver or release may be
effected only through a written document executed by the Holder and then only to
the extent specifically recited in such document.

     This Note shall be  governed  by and  construed  under the laws of Florida,
without regard to principles of conflict of laws.

                                  MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY LABORATORIES, INC.

                                  By:_____________________
                                  Name:  Todd E. Siegel
                                  Its:  President
PLIS485blttr-071913










July 19, 2013


VIA EDGAR


Office of Insurance Products
Division of Investment Management
Securities and Exchange Commission
100 F Street, NE
Washington, D.C. 20549-4644




RE:    Principal Life Insurance Company Separate Account B
Principal Lifetime Income Solutions Variable Annuity Contract 
Registration Statement on Form N-4
File No.’s: 333-171650 and 811-02091


I am Counsel for the above-referenced Registrant, and have reviewed the attached post-effective amendment which is being filed pursuant to Rule 485(b) under the Securities Act of 1933.  I hereby represent that the amendment does not contain disclosures which would render it ineligible to become effective pursuant to Rule 485(b).


Sincerely, 




/s/ Doug Hodgson


Doug Hodgson
Counsel
711 High Street
Des Moines, Iowa 503092-0300
(515) 362-2384 (office)
(866) 496-6527 (facsimile)
hodgson.doug@principal.com


Enclosure
CERTIFICATION
                     PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                          SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     The  undersigned  hereby  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
undersigned's  best knowledge and belief,  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the Geodyne  Energy Income  Limited  Partnership  II-F ("Issuer") for the period
ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"):

      (a)   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 Issuer.

      Dated this 13th day of August, 2002.

                              GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LIMITED PARTNERSHIP II-F
                              ("Issuer")

                              //S//Dennis R. Neill
                              -------------------------------------
                              Dennis R. Neill
                              President (Chief Executive Officer)

                              //s//Craig D. Loseke
                              -------------------------------------
                              Craig D. Loseke
                              Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Shaia, Appellant.

[977 NYS2d 663]

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berk-man, J.), rendered on or about April 13, 2011, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Sweeny, DeGrasse, Freedman and Gische, JJ.