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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6358

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ROSARIO A. FIORANI, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior

District Judge. (CR-98-340)

Submitted: September 17, 2004 Decided: November 22, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rosario A. Fiorani, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. G. David Hackney,

Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*

See Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 367-70 (4th Cir. 2004)

(holding that order denying relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) in

a habeas setting is “the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding”

subject to the certificate of appealability requirement of 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2000)).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Rosario A. Fiorani, Jr., appeals a district court’s order

construing his “Motion for Reversal of Unconstitutional Conviction

on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, Prosecutorial and Judicial

Misconduct, and Brady Violations” as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000)

motion, and dismissing it as successive, noting that Fiorani has

not obtained authorization from this court to file such a motion.

An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255

proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability.* 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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)

(2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that

reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are

debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the

district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Fiorani has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this appeal. We
- 3 -

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.

DISMISSED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MITCHELL EDWARD PEDRO,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 180 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MITCHELL EDWARD PEDRO,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 181 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 27th day of September, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

____________________________________ 

: 

GOLDA HARRIS, : 

: 

Plaintiff, : 

v. : 

: 

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF : 

 CORRECTIONS, et al., : 

 : 

Defendants. : 

____________________________________: 

 

 

Civil Action No. 11-1321 (PGS) 

 

ORDER

 

A Report and Recommendation was filed on November 21, 2013 recommending that this 

Court grant Defendants= motion to dismiss Plaintiff=s complaint for failure to provide discovery 

pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 37. (ECF No. 40). The parties were given notice that they had 

fourteen days from receipt thereof to file and serve objections pursuant to Local Civil Rule 

72.1(c)(2). No objections having been received, and the Court having reviewed the Report and 

Recommendation de novo, and good cause appearing; 

It is, on this 11th day of December, 2013, 

ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Arpert 

(ECF 54) is hereby adopted as the opinion of the Court; and it is further 

ORDERED that Defendants= motion to dismiss Plaintiff=s complaint for failure to 

provide discovery is granted (ECF No. 40), and it is further 

ORDERED that, for the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff's 

complaint is dismissed with prejudice, and it is further 

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court designate the action as CLOSED. 

 s/Peter G. Sheridan 

 PETER G. SHERIDAN, U.S.D.J.
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Clinical Trail Reviews.                    

*Date:*                         July 27, 2009.                    

*Time:*                         2 p.m. to 4 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, One Democracy Plaza, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Michael L. Bloom, Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, NIH-NIAMS, One Democracy Plaza, Room 820, MSC 4872, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892-487. 301-594-4953,                         *bloomm2@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.846, Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: July 7, 2009.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

 [FR Doc. E9-16570 Filed 7-13-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

District of New Jersey

CHAMBERS OF MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.

JOSE L. LINARES FEDERAL BUILDING & U.S. COURTHOUSE

JUDGE 50 WALNUT ST.. ROOM 5054

P.O. Box 999

Newark, NJ 07101-0999

973-645-6042

JuneM, 2012

Andrew Cox Jane Yoon

ECCF J201 107038 Office ofthe U.S. Attorney

354 Doremus Avenue District of New Jersey

Newark, NJ 07105 970 Broad Street, Suite 700

Newark, NJ 07102

Michael N. Pedicini

60 Washington Street

Morristown, NJ 07960

LETTER ORDER

Re: United States v. Cox

Criminal No.: 11-99

Dear Messrs. Cox and Counsel:

This matter comes before the Court by way of Defendant Andrew Cox’s request that this

Court hear at its July 16, 2012 hearing Defendant’s Motion to Produce a Search Warrant for the

purported March 23, 2011 search and seizure at the Maitland home by Pre-Trial Services.

[Docket Entry No. 113]. The Court will hear oral argument on Defendant’s Motion to Produce

to the extent that said motion is incorporated into Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket Entry

No. 88], with arguments regarding government misconduct incorporated by reference from

Defendant’s Motion for Release from Custody [Docket Entry No. 78].

IT IS accordingly on this I j dofJune, 2012,

ORDERED that the Government shall file its response, if any, to Defendant’s Motion to

Produce [Docket Entry No. 87] no later than June 25th, 2012; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendant shall file his reply thereto, not to exceed five (5) pages, by

July 2nd, 2012.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Jose 1/nares

Uni 1&l States District Judge
#### Brandon T. SHEETS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Clayton EDWARDS, Captain, White County Detention Center; Jeff Hacker, Corporal, White County Detention Center; Sanchez, Dr., White County Detention Center; Advanced Medical, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 12-2922.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: March 14, 2013.

Filed: March 19, 2013.

Brandon T. Sheets, Searcy, AR, pro se.

Robert L. Beard, Jr., Jason E. Owens, Rainwater & Holt, Benjamin Davis Jackson, Mitchell & Williams, Little Rock, AR, Russell A. Wood, Wood Law Firm, Rus-sellville, AR, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Former inmate Brandon T. Sheets appeals from the judgment of the District Court1 granting summary judgment to the defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Upon de novo review of the record, *see Carpenter v. Gage,*686 F.3d 644, 648 (8th Cir.2012), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 955, 184 L.Ed.2d 728 (2013) (stan*549dard of review), and careful consideration of the issues Sheets identifies on appeal, we find no basis for reversal. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jerome T. Kear-ney, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
#### VAC Service Corp., Respondent, v Technology Insurance Company, Inc., et al., Respondents. Tucker Partners, LP, Nonparty Appellant.

[853 NYS2d 577]

*525The allegations in the complaint arise from a dispute over a March 2003 services agreement entered into by the plaintiff and the defendants. Tucker Fartners, LF was not a party to that agreement and has no standing to enforce the terms of the agreement against the defendants *(see DeRaffele v 210-220-230 Owners Corp.,*33 AD3d 752, 753 [2006]; *Sopasis Constr. v Solomon,*233 AD2d 385, 386-387 [1996]; *Freidus v Sardelli,*192 AD2d 578, 580 [1993]). Moreover, the record demonstrated that Tucker Fartners, LP., was not a successor-in-interest to the plaintiffs rights under the services agreement *(see H. Morris & Partners v Opti-Ray, Inc.,*290 AD2d 486, 487-488 [2002]). The documentary evidence further established that the plaintiff had the authority to settle this action with the defendants. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly marked this action discontinued on the basis of the settlement and the stipulation of discontinuance entered into between the parties.

As Tucker Partners, LF had no rights or interests to enforce against the defendants, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying its cross motion to substitute itself as the named plaintiff in the action *(see*CPLR 1018; *NationsCredit*
      *526
      *Home Equity Servs. v Anderson,*16 AD3d 563, 564 [2005]; *Matter of Commercial Bank of Informatics & Computing Technique Dev. Bank Informtechnika v Ostashko,*274 AD2d 516, 517 [2000]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. Criminal No. 11-164 (KSH)

Anselmo Genovese, ORDER

Defendant.

Defendant Anselmo Genovese, through his counsel, Gerald 

L.Shargel, Esq., having applied to the Court for a modification of 

the terms of his home confinement imposed as a special condition 

of his eight month probationary term; and the government (Leslie 

Faye Schwartz, Assistant U.S. Attorney, appearing) having filed 

opposition; and after considering the papers submitted the Court 

finding that the proposed modification does not have meaningful 

support beyond the convenience of the defendant; and good cause 

thereby appearing,

IT IS on this 27th day of August, 2012,
ORDERED that the defendant’s application to modify the terms 

of his home confinement is denied.

/s/ Katharine S. Hayden 

KATHARINE S. HAYDEN

United States District Judge
Exhibit 31

       Statement Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
         By Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
       Regarding Facts and Circumstances Relating to Exchange Act Filings


I, Steven N. Bronson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K for the period ended
September 30, 2010;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual 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 annual report;

4. 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 I have:

     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
     information relating to the registrant is made known to me by others,
     particularly during the period in which this annual 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
     annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c) presented in this annual report my conclusions about the effectiveness
     of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the
     Evaluation Date;

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
auditors and the registrant's board of directors:

     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; and

6. I have indicated in this annual 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 my most recent evaluation, including
any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses.

Date: December 6, 2010

                                           /s/ Steven N. Bronson
                                           ----------------------------------
                                           Steven N. Bronson, President
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report On Form 10-Q of MCA Holdings Corporation (the "Company") for the quarter ending June 30, 2008, I, Wai Leung Cheng, Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that: 1. Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2008, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2008, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Dated:  August 14, 2008 MCA HOLDINGS CORPORATION By:/s/ Wai Leung Cheng  Wai Leung Cheng  Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report On Form 10-Q of MCA Holdings Corporation (the "Company") for the quarter ending June 30, 2008, I, Michael Yu-Lung Wong, Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that: 1. Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2008, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2008, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Dated:  August 14, 2008 MCA HOLDINGS CORPORATION By:/s/ Michael Yu-Lung Wong  Michael Yu-Lung Wong
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 Annual  Report of In Full Affect,  Inc. on Form
10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Daniel L.  Hodges,
President  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:

         (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/ Daniel L. Hodges
Daniel L. Hodges
President, Director
(Principal Executive Officer)


April 19, 2004


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
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 State of Kansas v. Edward Brooks.

No. 645.

Criminal Law — *Venue*— Judicial *Noti.ee.*Courts will take judicial notice that the city of Topeka, Kansas, is in Shawnee county, and proof that an offense was committed in the city of Topeka, Kansas, is proof that it was committed in Shawnee county.

Appeal from Shawnee district court; Z. T. BIazen, judge.

Opinion filed April 26, 1899.

Affirmed.

*A. A. Godard,*attorney-general, and *A. P. Jetmore,*for The State.

*Otis E. Hungate,*for appellant.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Wells, J.:

The only reason urged by the defendant why the judgment of the district court should be reversed is that the state failed to prove that the offense was committed in Shawnee county. A review of the evidence shows that of the witnesses who testified on the trial each one located the place where the offense was committed as 514 or 516 Kansas avenue, or both of, said numbers, except George Bass, who located it at 514, without even giving the name of the street, and R. M. Curtis at 514 and 516 Kansas avenue, up-stairs, known as the Jockheck building; but by agreement the affidavit of George Hungate was admitted, and in his evidence the location was fixed at 514 and 516 Kansas avenue, in the city of Topeka, Kansas. This was sufficient to fix the venue. Courts will take judicial notice of such general facts as everybody in their jurisdiction is supposed to know. In *State v. Reader,*60 Iowa, 527, 15 N. W. 423, it was said : “As the court will take judicial notice in what *345county a given incorporated town is situated, when it is proven that a crime was committed in an incorporated town, the venue is sufficiently shown.” In *Sullivan v. People,*122 Ill. 385, 13 N. E. 248, it was held : “The court will take judicial notice that Chicago is in Cook county, and proof that a crime is committed in Chicago is proof that it was committed in Cook county.”

The evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
June 13, 2018

VIA ECF 

The Honorable Justice Roberto A. Rivera-Soto (ret.)

Special Discovery Master

Ballard Spahr LLP 

210 Lake Drive East, Suite 200 

Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08002-1163

RE: Kimberlee Williams, et al. v. BASF Catalysts LLC, et al. 

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01754 (JLL) (JAD)

Dear Justice Rivera-Soto: 

In light of the information provided in the response submitted by BASF 

(ECF No. 539), Plaintiffs hereby withdraw their motion to compel (ECF No. 530) 

filed on May 21, 2018. 

 Respectfully Submitted,

 COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C.

 /s/ Christopher M. Placitella

 Christopher M. Placitella, Esq.

 (NJ Atty #: 027781981)

 Michael Coren, Esq.

 (NJ Atty #: 024871979)

 Jared M. Placitella, Esq.

 (NJ Atty #: 068272013)

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 572 Filed 06/13/18 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 40803
Justice Roberto A. Rivera-Soto (ret.)

June 13, 2018

Page 2

 Eric S. Pasternack, Esq.

 (NJ Atty #: 015132011)

 127 Maple Avenue

 Red Bank, NJ 07701

 (732) 747-9003

 FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP

 Jeffrey M. Pollock, Esq.

 (NJ Atty #: 015751987)

 Princeton Pike Corp. Center

 997 Lennox Drive,

 Building 3

Lawrenceville, NJ 08648

 (609) 896-7660

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 572 Filed 06/13/18 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 40804