alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-50126 Summary Calendar

RODERICK LYN BARNES, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. W-99-CV-58

-------------------- September 29, 2000 Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Roderick Lyn Barnes, TDCJ #607656, has filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, following the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. By moving for IFP, Barnes is challenging the district court’s certification that IFP should not be granted on appeal because his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Barnes argues that the district court erred in construing his complain as arising out of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the loss of his trusty class statusNo. 00-50126 -2- affected his release date and deprived him of the accrual of extra good time credits, that the district court erred by applying the incorrect law in deciding that Barnes failed to state a claim, and that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to amend. The district court erred when it construed Barnes’ claim as coming under § 1983 because Barnes’ claim should have been construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas
corpus. See Malchi v. Thaler , 211 F.3d 953, 956 (5th Cir. 2000). The district court did not err in finding that Barnes failed to state a claim because a prisoner does not have a constitutionally cognizable claim for the right to a particular time-earning
status. See Id. at 959. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Barnes’ motion to amend because the amendment would have been futile. See FDIC v. Conner , 20 F.3d 1376, 1385 (5th Cir. 1994). The district court’s certification that Barnes’ appeal was not taken in good faith was not error, and the appeal is dismissed. See Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202 and n.24.
IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

N o. 04

- 19

- 00517

- CV

Victor Jimenez MORENO and Lidia C. Moreno,

Appellants

v.

LGAG REALTY PARTNERS, LLC

, Appellee

From the 45 th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018

- CI

- 07564

Honorable David A. Canales, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE ALVAREZ , AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED . It is ORDERED that appellee recover its costs of this appeal from appellants

.

SIGNED August 19, 2020.

_____________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
**Exhibit 31.2**

**MANAGEMENTCERTIFICATION**

I, Brian J. Clark, certify that:

1.           Ihave reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Stanley, Inc.;

2.           Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.           Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.           The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)          Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)         Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c)          Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.           The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

a)          Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting, which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b)         Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
|                          |   | /s/ BRIAN J. CLARK      |
|--------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
| Date: February 12,  2007 |   | Brian J. Clark          |
|                     |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

SECTION 302 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Matthew Hutchins, President, Chief Financial and Executive Officer, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of IBroadband, Inc.;



1.

Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;



2.

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



3.

I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:



a.

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;



b.

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and



c.

Presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;



4.

The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



a.

All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and



b.

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls;



5.

The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



Date: April 26, 2006



By: /s/ Matthew Hutchins

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



Title:  President/ Chief Financial and Executive Officer
---

Section 1350 Certifications CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER AND 
  CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
  of 2002

I, Qiaozhen Chen, President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial
  Officer and Director of Genemen Inc. (who also performs as the Principal Financial
  Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) certify that the Quarterly Report
  on Form 10-QSB (the "Report") for the quarter ended August 31, 2006, filed with
  the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof:

(i)       fully complies with the
  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
  as amended, and

(ii)      the information contained
  in the Report fairly presents in all material respects, the financial condition
  and results of operations of Genemen Inc.

| | By: | /s/ Qiaozhen Chen                                    
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------
| |     | Qiaozhen Chen                                          
| |     | President, Chief Executive
        Officer and a       
| |     | member of the Board of Directors
        (who also     
| |     | performs as the Principal Financial
        officer and
| |     | Principal Accounting Officer)                          

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

---
EXHIBIT 21


                 SEQUENT COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC. - SUBSIDIARIES


ENTERPRISE FINANCE COMPANY (Oregon)

SEQUENT EXPORT, INC. (Barbados)


CANADA:

     SEQUENT COMPUTER SYSTEMS (CANADA) LIMITED


EUROPE:

     SEQUENT COMPUTER SYSTEMS LIMITED (United Kingdom)

     SEQUENT COMPUTER SYSTEMS A.B.(Sweden)

     SEQUENT COMPUTER SYSTEMS GmbH (Germany)

     SEQUENT COMPUTER SYSTEMS, S.A. (France)

     SEQUENT COMPUTER SYSTEMS, B.V.(Netherlands)

     SEQUENT COMPUTER SYSTEMS, spol. s r.o. (Czechoslovakia)

     OPEN TOOL INTERNATIONAL, B.V. (Netherlands)

JAPAN:

     SEQUENT COMPUTERS JAPAN CO., LTD.


ASIA:

     SEQUENT COMPUTER SYSTEMS (N.Z.) LIMITED (New Zealand)

     SEQUENT COMPUTER SYSTEMS AUSTRALIA PTY. LIMITED

     SEQUENT COMPUTER SYSTEMS ASIA LIMITED (Hong Kong)

     SEQUENT COMPUTER SYSTEMS (SINGAPORE) PTE. LIMITED
**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**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Stanley, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the fiscal quarter endingDecember 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), we, Philip O. Nolan, Chairman, President andChief Executive Officer of the Company, and Brian J. Clark, Executive VicePresident, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

(1)               The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)               The information contained inthe Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/  PHILIP O. NOLAN                             |   |
|--------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Philip  O. Nolan                                 |   |
| Chairman,  President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
| (Principal  Executive Officer)                   |   |
| February 6,  2008                           |   |
|                                             |   |

 
| /s/  BRIAN J. CLARK                                              |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Brian  J. Clark                                                  |   |
| Executive  Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |   |
| (Principal  Financial Officer)                                   |   |
| February 6,  2008                                           |   |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6327

LEWIS WELSH,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

LEROY CARTLEDGE, Warden,

Respondent – Appellee,

and

ALAN WILSON, Attorney General,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. 

(4:13-cv-00296-MGL)

Submitted: June 26, 2014 Decided: June 30, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lewis Welsh, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant 

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Lewis Welsh seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and 

granting summary judgment for Respondent on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2012) 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). “[T]he timely 

filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional 

requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket 

on January 24, 2014. The notice of appeal was filed on February 

26, 2014.* Because Welsh 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 facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

 * 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).
3

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-70,615]

Pursuant to Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on May 27, 2009 in response to a worker petition filed on behalf of workers of Adecco Technical, Personal Laser Solutions Division, working on-site at Hewlett Packard, Boise, Idaho.

The petitioning group of workers is covered by an earlier petition (TA-W-70,026) filed on May 18, 2009 that is the subject of an ongoing investigation for which a determination has not yet been issued. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation under this petition has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC this 24th day of June 2009.

Richard Church,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-15755 Filed 7-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
' . 

. ' 

' ' ' 

' • llir!tomble.. 'aww_sJtJ1Ml J . . . . . . . . ·. . . . . 

· . _·_\_~m\-<d_to ·,nhrlm~illA-M \·I~ f{ltX.bJtiJ~W_trMls~ 

. ~\:b"CS y~a;)'LaWaJ.:h~. f»!m~" l t1o 11o± ~ifu'p~ .. · 

_tu ~W_~_- ~-tYY\_tL+ ·dhi_i_FoffiLW_w_an~_tn_ptrrf! dL ~QJ& ~ ·. · _, 

· ~~ C»Sf!!D __r,J~ :tu-dA~_cnfD~fY\?\dJun :ID (onh.d:J'l'l£.-__ ~ . 

--¥~-<SD~~-~--fuf~yil\!{_-p'M~ and_Cfirn1dJL~1JY\ . .' · · . 

~~~---· ~·/--~.·~.bod~Bil~J~---------------

-----'-------'-----'---. r:}..tJ:J:lfttn ----· 

• I 

. - ; . ....__ _ _, _____ ... -. ' '' 

•. ~.·-.. --~~------------------~--~.:~~~~~;-~{~~5~->-'·
An unpublis|

SUPREME CouRT

oF

Nevapa

CLERK’S ORDER

(ov 1907

cao

led order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority. SCR 123

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

NANCY MARTINEZ; RYLAND HOMES No. 64917
NEVADA, LLC; AND B&F

INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Appellants, F | L E D
vs.

DAVYN RIDGE HOMEOWNERS' JUL 24 205
ASSOCIATION,

CIE K. LISDEMAN
Respondent. URY,

TY CLERK

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, and cause
appearing, this appeal is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs
and attorney fees. NRAP 42(b).
It is so ORDERED.

CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT
TRACIE K. Ly pe
By: Meff-

cc: Hon. David B. Barker, District Judge
Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn & Dial, LLC
Law Offices of Peter Goldstein
Perry & Westbrook, P.C.
Eighth District Court Clerk

ISB 7y
ONE PRICE CLOTHING STORES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY

EXHIBIT 23 - Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements No.
33-20529, 33-31623, 33-48091 and 33-61803 on Form S-8 pertaining to the 1987
Stock Option Plan, the 1988 Stock Option Plan, the 1991 Stock Option Plan and
the Director Stock Option Plan, respectively, of One Price Clothing Stores, Inc.
of our report dated February 15, 1996 (March 25, 1996 as to Note B and Note H)
appearing in Form 10-K of One Price Clothing Stores, Inc. for the year ended
December 30, 1995.





DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Greenville, South Carolina


March 29,1996
<PAGE>
VICE PRESIDENTS' INCENTIVE BONUS PLAN FOR FISCAL 1999


A  fiscal  1999  Vice  Presidents'  Incentive  Bonus  plan  is  established  for
distribution  after the end of fiscal 1999.  Each Vice  President will receive a
maximum  bonus of 60% of base salary for fiscal 1999 if  Consolidated  Operating
Profit (income before interest,  taxes,  depreciation  and  amortization  before
payment of any bonuses) is at least $26,648,000  greater than the level achieved
in fiscal 1998, as follows:

Each Vice President will receive a bonus of 8% of base salary for fiscal 1999 if
Consolidated  Operating  Profit is at least  equal to  $17,490,000.  Thereafter,
1.17%  of base  salary  will  be  paid as  bonus  for  each  1%  improvement  in
Consolidated  Operating  Profit  up to a  level  of  $22,262,000.  For  each  1%
improvement in Consolidated  Operating Profit beyond $22,262,000,  an additional
 .66% of base salary will be paid, up to a maximum  incentive bonus of 6% of base
salary.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6434

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL PAUL PUZEY, a/k/a Big Pete,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief 

District Judge. (3:00-cr-00057-GMG-RWT-16)

Submitted: July 21, 2015 Decided: July 24, 2015

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Paul Puzey, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Paul Puzey appeals from the district court’s order 

denying his motion for reduction of sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)

(2012). We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of 

discretion and no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for 

the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Puzey, 

No. 3:00-cr-00057-GMG-RWT-16 (N.D.W Va. Mar. 16, 2015) 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
1

Filed 7/24/15 Ledesma v. Superior Court CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

RONALD CURTIS LEDESMA,

Petitioner,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

RIVERSIDE COUNTY,

Respondent;

PATRICIA LEDESMA-CARNETT,

Real Party in Interest.

E063604

(Super.Ct.No. RID1501431)

OPINION

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of mandate. Eric Isaac, Temporary 

Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Petition is granted.

Best Best & Krieger, and Kira L. Klatchko, for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

No appearance for Real Party in Interest.
2

In this matter we have reviewed the petition and the record filed therewith, and 

invited real party in interest to respond in opposition to the petition. No such response 

has been received. As we consider it a matter of settled principles of law, issuance of a 

peremptory writ in the first instance is therefore appropriate. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial 

Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178.)

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6, subdivision (a)(2), if a court 

issues a notice of an all purpose assignment and there are parties who have not yet 

appeared, such parties have 15 days in which to file a peremptory challenge after the date 

of the party or parties’ first appearance. 

Here, petitioner filed his response to the petition on May 4, 2015, and “appeared” 

at that time. His peremptory challenge under section 170.6 was filed on May 7, 2015,

and was clearly timely.

DISPOSITION

Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue, directing the Superior Court of Riverside 

County to vacate its order rejecting or denying the peremptory challenge, and to enter a 

new order accepting the challenge and have the matter assigned to a new judge.

Petitioner is directed to prepare and have the peremptory writ of mandate issued, 

copies served, and the original filed with the clerk of this court, together with proof of 

service on all parties.
3

In light of the lack of opposition to the petition, this opinion shall be final 

forthwith.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

CODRINGTON

J.

We concur:

HOLLENHORST

Acting P. J.

KING

J.