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

**No. 14**  **- 6398** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. NEIL CALVIN JOHNSON , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence
. R. Bryan Harwell , District Judge. ( 4:07

- cr - 00900

- RBH

- 1; 4:10

- cv - 70246

- RBH )

Submitted : September 23, 2014 Decided: September 25, 2014

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Neil Calvin Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. William Norman Nettles, United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Neil Calvin John son seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying, as successive, his motion to amend his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) ( 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 demons trating 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 cou rt denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have i ndependently reviewed the record and conclude that Johnson has not made the requisite showing. The district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Johnson’s motion to amend his § 2255 motion because it was a successive and unauthorized3 § 2255 motion. ∗ Acc ordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability , deny as moot Johnson’s motion to expedite, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and arg ument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISS ED

∗ I n the absence of pre

- filing authorization from this court, the district court lacks jurisdiction to hear a successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2012).
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 7318

VINCENT JEROME BOSEMAN , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. ANNE SPEARS WALSH; JOHN MEADORS; TAV SWARAT; BRIAN PETRANO; J. MARK HAYES, III , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Columbia

. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. ( 3:22

- cv - 01482

- TLW )

Submitted : March 16, 2023 Decided: March 21, 2023

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Vincent Jerome Boseman , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7318 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/21/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:
Vincent Jer ome Boseman appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be
denied and advised Boseman that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the
recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Martin v

. Duffy , 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 846

- 47 (4th Cir. 1 985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140, 154

- 55 (1985). Boseman has forfeited appellate review by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district co urt. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 22-7318 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/21/2023 Pg: 2 of 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 Legacy Reserves LP (the “Partnership”)
      on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of
      the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of Legacy
      Reserves GP, LLC (the Company”), the general partner of the Partnership,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, 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, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Partnership.






/s/
                Cary D.
                Brown
            
            
            /s/
                Steven H.
                PruettCary
                D.
                Brown
            
            
            Steven
                H.
                PruettChief
                Executive
                Officer
              
              May
                14, 2007
            
            
            President,
                Chief
                Financial Officer and
              Secretary
              May
                14, 2007






A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
  The
        foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
        Commission as an exhibit to the Report and shall not be considered filed
        as part
        of the Report.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7454
LARRY DARNELL JORDAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THOMAS RAY SIMS, Solicitor for Dorchester County; SHERIFF OF DORCHESTER COUNTY, South Carolina; MARGIE CARN MCKISSICK, Clerk of Court, Dorchester County, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-1933-3-OBC) Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 17, 1996 Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Darnell Jordan, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Jordan v. Sims , No. CA-95-1933-3-OBC (D.S.C. Aug. 29, 1995). 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.

AFFIRMED
#### In the Matter of Gregory John Fischer et al., Appellants, v NYS Board of Elections et al., Respondents.

Submitted November 5, 2012;

decided November 29, 2012

Motion for reconsideration of this Court’s October 18, 2012 dismissal order denied *[see*19 NY3d 1040 (2012)].
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





The undersigned hereby certifies that he is the duly appointed and acting Chief Financial Officer of Neoprobe Corporation (the Company) and hereby further certifies as follows:





(1)           The periodic report containing financial statements to which this certificate is an exhibit 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 periodic report to which this certificate is an exhibit fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





In witness whereof, the undersigned has executed and delivered this certificate as of the date set forth opposite his signature below.





March 16, 2011
/s/ Brent L. LarsonBrent L. LarsonSenior Vice President andChief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 15 (Monday, January 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 4426]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1479]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL09-27-000]


City of Riverside, CA; Notice of Filing

January 2, 2009.
    Take notice that on December 23, 2008, the City of Riverside, 
California filed its sixth annual revision to its Transmission Revenue 
Balancing Account Adjustment, to become effective January 1, 2009.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5a1c1f081915343633343f092f2a2a35282e1a3c3f2839743d352c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="adebe8ffeee2c3c1c4c3c8fed8ddddc2dfd9edcbc8dfce83cac2db">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on January 22, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-1479 Filed 1-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**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 Annual Report of Black Hills Power, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Anthony S. Cleberg, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial 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 results of operations of the Company.

 

 

| Date:  March 17, 2009 |                         |
|-----------------------|------------------------------|
|                  |                         |
|                  | /S/ ANTHONY S. CLEBERG       |
|                  | Anthony S. Cleberg           |
|                  | Executive Vice President and |
|                  | Chief Financial Officer      |
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 Annual  Report of The Black & Decker  Corporation  (the
"Corporation")  on Form 10-K for the period ended  December  31, 2003,  as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Michael D.  Mangan,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the  Corporation,  certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  ss.  906  of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, 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 results of operations of the
Corporation.



/s/ MICHAEL D. MANGAN
-----------------------
Michael D. Mangan
Chief Financial Officer
March 3, 2004
2006 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

1-27-2006

USA v. Parker

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 04-3458

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Parker" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1708.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1708
 The Honorable Dickinson R. Debevoise, Senior District Judge, United States District *

Court for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation. 

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-3458

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

RAYMOND PARKER,

 Appellant

 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

D.C. Crim. 03-cr-00250-3

District Judge: The Honorable William W. Caldwell

 

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

January 9, 2006

 

Before: BARRY and AMBRO, Circuit Judges, and DEBEVOISE, District Judge *

 

(Opinion Filed: January 27, 2006)

 

OPINION

 
2

BARRY, Circuit Judge

Appellant Raymond Parker pled guilty to a one count Information charging him

with Use of a Communication Facility to Facilitate a Felony Drug Crime, in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 843(b). The District Court found the quantity and type of drugs involved: 

between five and twenty grams of crack cocaine. Based on this finding, the Court

calculated the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range to be 46-48 months imprisonment. 

The Court, however, departed downward from this range under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 based

on Parker’s substantial assistance to authorities, and imposed a sentence of thirty months

imprisonment.

Parker challenges his sentence under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220

(2005). Specifically, Parker asserts that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated by the

use of judicial fact finding to enhance his sentence based on the amount of drugs

involved. He contends that there were no admissions, nor any jury findings beyond a

reasonable doubt, regarding the drug quantity.

Because Parker was sentenced before the Supreme Court’s decision in Booker, his

appeal falls within the ambit of our decision in United States v. Davis, 407 F.3d 162, 166

(3d Cir. 2005) (en banc) (concluding that defendants sentenced before Booker should

have their sentencing challenge “remand[ed] for consideration of the appropriate sentence

by the District Court in the first instance.”). Therefore, although we will affirm Parker’s

conviction, we will vacate his sentence and remand for resentencing in accordance with
3

Booker.
February 3, 2015 

Jeffrey D. Kyle 

Third Court of Appeals 

P.O. Box 12547 

Austin, Texas 78711 

Re: Cause No. D-1-GN-13-003462 

 Court of Appeals No: 03-14-00645-CV 

Style: Miriam L. Stansberry v. Tx School for the Blind and Visually Impaired 

 

Dear Mr. Kyle: 

I have not been paid for the record that was due on January 30, 2015. As soon as 

payment is received, I will upload the Reporter’s Record. 

 

/s/ LaSonya Thomas 

Official Court Reporter, 261st District Court 

(512) 854-9331
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Angel Cintron, Respondent.

Submitted March 4, 2013;

decided March 21, 2013

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Robert S. Dean, Esq., Center for Appellate Litigation, 74 Trinity Place, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10006 assigned as counsel to the respondent on the appeal herein.
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.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# Agency Holding the Meeting:

Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

# Time and Date:

2 p.m., July 15, 2009.

# Place:

1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.

# Status:

Closed.

# Matters To Be Considered:

Enforcement Matters.

# Contact Person for More Information:

Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,

Assistant Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. E9-14646 Filed 6-18-09; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

July 16, 2015

ERRATA

______________________ 

Appeal No. 2012-1289

BIOSIG INSTRUMENTS, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant 

v. 

NAUTILUS, INC., 

Defendant-Appellee 

Decided: April 27, 2015

Precedential Opinion

_____________________ 

Please make the following change: 

On page one, replace the sentence

DANIEL C. MULVENY, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Wilmington, DE.

 

with the following sentence: 

DANIEL C. MULVENY, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, 

LLP, Radnor, PA.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), the undersigned officer of Tactical Solution Partners, Inc. (the Company) does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007 (the Report) 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 results of operations of the Company.



|      |                                         
|----- | ----------------------------------------
|      | /s/ Richard A. Sajac                    
|      | Richard A. Sajac
Chief Executive Officer
|      |                                         
|      |                                         
|Date: | November 9, 2007                        



The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
IV 

House Calendar No. 37 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 492 

[Report No. 116–155] 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 582) to provide for increases 

in the Federal minimum wage, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 15, 2019 

Mr. MORELLE, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 582) to provide 

for increases in the Federal minimum wage, and for 

other purposes. 

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it 

2 shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 

3 582) to provide for increases in the Federal minimum 

4 wage, and for other purposes. All points of order against 

5 consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in 

6 the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee 

7 on Education and Labor now printed in the bill, modified 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 492 RH 

1 by the amendment printed in part A of the report of the 

2 Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall 

3 be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be 

4 considered as read. All points of order against provisions 

5 in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question 

6 shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, 

7 and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage 

8 without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate 

9 equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 

10 minority member of the Committee on Education and 

11 Labor; (2) the further amendment printed in part B of 

12 the report of the Committee on Rules, if offered by the 

13 Member designated in the report, which shall be in order 

14 without intervention of any point of order, shall be consid15 ered as read, shall be separately debatable for the time 

16 specified in the report equally divided and controlled by 

17 the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject 

18 to a demand for division of the question; and (3) one mo19 tion to recommit with or without instructions. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS

pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
House Calendar No. 37 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 492 

[Report No. 116–155] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 582) 

wage, and for other purposes. to provide for increases in the Federal minimum 

JULY 15, 2019 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS