alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7246
DONNIE ORVILLE BUNDICK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CR-91-105-R, CA-95-513-R) Submitted: March 31, 1997 Decided: May 20, 1997 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donnie Orville Bundick, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Urban Baer, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Donnie Bundick appeals from the district court's order denying his motion brought under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We dismiss.Our review of Bundick's application to proceed on appeal without the prepayment of fees under the Prison Litigation Reform Act reveals that he made a false allegation of poverty. Specifically, Bundick stated on September 1, 1996, that he was not employed, that he had not been employed since 1990, and that he had not receivedwithin the past twelve months income from any source. Prison records, however, reveal that Bundick was employed and received pay at least for the time period between October of 1995 and July of 1996. This false allegation, bearing directly on Bund ick's financial capability, compels us to dismiss his appeal under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2) (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>         9
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                       DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                  13,697
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                     161
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                         8,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                             0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>             47,829
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                  36,483
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                    36,946
<LOANS>                                259,102
<ALLOWANCE>                              3,200
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         372,426
<DEPOSITS>                             319,540
<SHORT-TERM>                             5,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                      5,881
<LONG-TERM>                             12,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<COMMON>                                 8,244
<OTHER-SE>                              21,761
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>         372,426
<INTEREST-LOAN>                         23,820
<INTEREST-INVEST>                        4,199
<INTEREST-OTHER>                           587
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                        28,606
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                      12,416
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      13,231
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                   15,375
<LOAN-LOSSES>                              745
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                          (5)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                         13,494
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          6,153
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>               6,153
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                             4,146
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             2.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                             2.36
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                            8.69
<LOANS-NON>                                867
<LOANS-PAST>                                72
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                           606
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                          3,213
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                         2,900
<CHARGE-OFFS>                              650
<RECOVERIES>                               205
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                        3,200
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                     2,055
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                          0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                  1,145
        

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



     In  connection  with  the  Annual Report of Transpirator Technologies, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended March 31, 2002 as filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Raymond  J. Romano, Chief Financial 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  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  result of operations of the
Company.




                         /s/Raymond  J.  Romano
                         -------------------------
                         Chief  Financial  Officer
                         November  1,  2002
H. Res. 43 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

January 16, 2019. 

Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, 

declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole 

House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill 

(H.R. 268) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal 

year ending September 30, 2019, and for other purposes. The 

first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 

order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 

hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 

minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or 

their respective designees. After general debate the bill shall 

be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. An 

amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 

text of Rules Committee Print 116–2, modified by the 

amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee 

on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as 

adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. 
2 

•HRES 43 EH 

The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill 

for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute 

rule and shall be considered as read. All points of order 

against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. Clause 

2(e) of rule XXI shall not apply during consideration of the 

bill. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be 

in order except those printed in part B of the report of the 

Committee on Rules. Each such further amendment may be 

offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered 

only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 

report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 

opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not 

be subject to a demand for division of the question in the 

House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order 

against such further amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill, as amended, to the 

House with such further amendments as may have been 

adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 

on the bill, as amended, and any further amendment thereto 

to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

SEC. 2. The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for 

a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on 
3 

•HRES 43 EH 

Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived 

with respect to any resolution reported through the legislative 

day of January 23, 2019, relating to a measure making or 

continuing appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
| 1.  | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Barnwell Industries, Inc.; and |
|----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |
|--------|--------|

| 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: June  19, 2014 | /s/ Russell M. Gifford      |
|---------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
|                      | Russell M. Gifford                                   |
|                      | Chief Financial Officer                              |
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13-A-14 OR 15D-14 OF THE SECURITIES  EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302  OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,
Quentin T. Kelly, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report of WorldWater & Power Corp.:

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;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange
Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and
15d-15(f)) for the small business issuer and have:



5.     The
small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



|Dated: November 1, 2007 |  | By:    | /s/QUENTIN T. KELLY        
|----------------------- |  | ------ | ---------------------------
|                        |  | Name:  | Quentin T. Kelly           
|                        |  | Title: | Principal Executive Officer

---



QuickLinks
#### SACHS et al. v. OHIO NAT. LIFE INS. CO.

No. 3767.

District Court, N. D. Illinois, E. D.

March 12, 1942.

Sidney W. Mandel and Millard C. Eiseman, both of Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs.

Seyfarth & Atwood, of Chicago, Ill., for defendant.

*349WOODWARD, District Judge.

Plaintiff moves to strike eleven paragraphs of defendant’s answer “for the reason that they are vague and indefinite, immaterial and insufficient in law to set up any defense to the cause of action asserted hy plaintiffs in their complaint.”

A motion in this form involving eleven paragraphs to an answer is a palpable noncompliance with Rule 7(b) (1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, which requires that a motion “shall state with particularity the grounds therefor.” This point was raised in the brief of the defendant, filed under Rule 7 of the local rules of this court, in reply to the brief of the plaintiffs in support of the motion. Although the attention of the plaintiffs was called sharply to the noncompliance with the rule, yet no move has been made to make the motion more specific as required by Rule 7(b) (1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The motion does not comply with the rule referred to and therefore will be denied. What is said by Judge Moscowitz in the case of Steingut v. National City Bank of New York, D.C., 36 F.Supp. 486, 487, is apposite. “The court would ordinarily excuse the failure to comply with this rule if it were inadvertent, but such is not the case here. There should be strict compliance with the rules, otherwise they will be whittled away and become meaningless and unenforceable.”

However, one of the paragraphs of defendant’s answer which is sought to be stricken out invokes the statute of limitations. In view of all the pleadings, the statute of limitations is a good plea.
EXHIBIT 32.1
------------



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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Landauer, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
William E. Saxelby, President and 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 to the best of my knowledge and
belief:

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

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

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Landauer, Inc. and will be retained by Landauer, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.



                                    /s/  William E. Saxelby
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    William E. Saxelby
                                    President & Chief Executive Officer



February 8, 2007
**Exhibit
      99.2**








CERTIFICATE
      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 (the “Report”) on the Form 10-QSB of
      Mortlock Ventures Inc. (the “Company”) for the six months ended December 31,
      2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof,
      I, Michael Laidlaw, Chief Executive Officer, President and Director, 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 best of my knowledge and
      belief:





1.
      The
      Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or
      15
      (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





2.
      The
      information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
      Company.








Date:
      January 17, 2007





MICHAEL
      LAIDLAW


Michael
      Laidlaw


Chief
      Executive Officer,


President
      and Director











-1-
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6891

REGINALD FULLARD,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

FRANK PERRY,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Loretta Copeland 

Biggs, District Judge. (1:15-cv-00251-LCB-JLW)

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

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reginald Fullard, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Reginald Fullard 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 (2012) petition. The order is 

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Fullard has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350   In connection with the Quarterly Report of Proper Power and Energy, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph E. Abdo, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to my knowledge that:  (i)  the accompanying Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Act); and  (ii)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  PROPER POWER AND ENERGY, INC.  /s/:  Joseph E. Abdo JOSEPH E. ABDO, Chief Executive Officer   June 12, 2011
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-50879

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

YUVIEL TAVERA-JAIMES, also known as Juviel Tavera,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:12-CR-60-1

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Yuviel Tavera-Jaimes pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation 

in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and was sentenced to 24 months of imprisonment 

and three years of supervised release. Tavera-Jaimes argues that the district 

court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment without an 

evidentiary hearing. He argues the merits of his motion to dismiss based on 

United States v. Mendoza-Lopez, 481 U.S. 828 (1987), which allows a defendant 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 14, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 12-50879 Document: 00513114632 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/14/2015
No. 12-50879

2

to collaterally challenge the use of a deportation order in a prosecution under 

§ 1326. He notes that the district court denied his motion to dismiss the 

indictment as being untimely. However, the district court did not address the 

merits of his arguments challenging the deportation order, and Tavera-Jaimes 

makes no argument challenging the district court’s determination that his 

motion was untimely.

“Failure of an appellant to properly argue or present issues in an 

appellate brief renders those issues abandoned.” United States v. Beaumont,

972 F.2d 553, 563 (5th Cir. 1992); FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8). When an appellant 

fails to identify any error in the district court’s analysis, it is the same as if the 

appellant had not appealed that issue. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy 

Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Therefore, we do not address 

this point of error because it has not been briefed properly to address the basis 

of the district court’s ruling. See United States v. Rivas, 99 F.3d 170, 176 (5th 

Cir. 1996). The appeal as it relates to the conviction is DISMISSED AS 

FRIVOLOUS. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

Tavera-Jaimes argues that the district court erred in overruling his 

objection to the 16-point increase to his base offense level under U.S.S.G. 

§ 2L1.2 based on his prior conviction for unlawful restraint. Tavera-Jaimes 

has completed the 24-month sentence imposed by the district court and was 

removed from the United States on February 26, 2014. Accordingly, any 

appeal from his sentence is moot. See United States v. Rosenbaum-Alanis, 483 

F.3d 381, 383 (5th Cir. 2007). The appeal as it relates to his sentence is 

DISMISSED AS MOOT.

 Case: 12-50879 Document: 00513114632 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/14/2015
Order entered June 8, 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 21
- 00244
- CV IN THE INTEREST OF I.D. AND A.D., CHILDREN On Appeal from the 354th Judicial District Court

Hunt County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 88200

O RDER This is an accelerated appeal involving the termination of appellant’s parental rights. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 28.4. Before the Court is appellant’s June 7, 2021 second motion seeking a fourteen

- day ext ension of time to file his brief on the merits. The Court previously granted appellant a twenty

- day extension. Accordingly, we GRANT the motion only to the extent that we extend the time to June 17, 2021 . We caution appellant that no further extension w ill be granted.

/s/ DENNISE GARCIA JUSTICE