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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4300

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL CASSANOVA DYSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, 

Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:09-cr-00021-FPS-JES-6)

Submitted: November 4, 2010 Decided: November 23, 2010

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles T. Berry, Fairmont, West Virginia, for Appellant. 

William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney, John C. Parr, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM: 

Michael Cassanova Dyson appeals his conviction and 

262-month sentence following conviction by a jury of 

distribution of cocaine base in or near a protected location. 

On appeal, Dyson asserts that trial counsel rendered ineffective 

assistance by failing to explain the terms of two plea 

agreements offered by the government. Dyson claims that, had 

the terms been properly explained, he would have accepted a plea 

agreement rather than proceeding to trial.

We may address on direct appeal a claim that counsel 

was ineffective only if the ineffectiveness appears conclusively 

on the face of the record. United States v. Baldovinos, 434 

F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006); United States v. DeFusco, 949 

F.2d 114, 120-21 (4th Cir. 1991). To establish a violation of 

the Sixth Amendment due to ineffective assistance of counsel, 

Dyson must demonstrate that: (1) “counsel’s representation fell 

below an objective standard of reasonableness”; and (2) “the 

deficient performance prejudiced the defense.” Strickland v. 

Washington

We have carefully reviewed the record and conclude 

that it does not conclusively demonstrate that Dyson’s trial 

counsel provided ineffective assistance. Accordingly, we

decline to consider on direct appeal the sole issue Dyson has 

presented for review. We therefore affirm the district court’s 

, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984). 
3

judgment. 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
CA,

vs.

CONTINUANCE AND MITCHELL KURLANDER and SCHEDULING ORDER ALAN ABESHAUS,

Defendants.

THIS MATTER having been opened to the Court upon the joint application of the United

States of America (Assistant U.S. Attorney Eric T. Kanefsky appearing) and defendant Mitchell

Kurlander (William A. DeStefano appearing) and defendant Alan Abeshaus (Kevin H. Marino

appearing), for an order granting a continuance of the proceedings in the above-captioned matter

and for a scheduling order, and the defendants being aware that they have the right to have the

matter brought to trial within 70 days of the date of their appearance before a judicial officer of

this court pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 316l(c)(l), and the defendants

having consented to such a continuance, and for good and sufficient cause shown,

IT IS THE FINDING OF THIS COURT that this action should be continued for the

following reasons:

1. The matter has been designated as a complex case pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §

3 l6l(h)(7)(B)(ii) by order dated September 12, 2011 [Dkt. # I 9];

2. Defendants have consented to the aforementioned continuance; and

3. As a result of the foregoing, the ends ofjustice serve by granting the continuance
that may be brought by way of Fed. R. Crim. P. 12. The Government shall file any responsive

brief within thirty (30) days of the filing of Defendants’ motion. Defendants shall file any reply

brief within ten (10) daysfhe fi)ing of the Government’s response. A hearing on the Rule 12motions will be held oI// / ,20l2.

IT IS FURTHER(5RDERED that the deadline to serve pretrial motions not otherwise

provided for above is August 13, 2012. Responsive briefs shall be filed on or before September

10, 2012. Any reply briefs shaje fi d on or before September 17, 2012. A hearing on the

pretrial motions will be held onLj /,2012.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the trial is scheduled for October 1, 2012; andIT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action be, and hereby is, continued until October

1, 2012, and that the period from the date of this Order through October 1, 2012 shall be

excludable in computing time under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the remaining provisions of the Order for Discovery

and Inspection shall remain in full force and effect.

United States Senior District Judge

2
|   | (a) | our periodic report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013 (the “Form 10-K”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and related interpretations; and |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (b) | the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and our results of operations. |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/ Carlos A. Cabrera |
|--------|-----------------------|
|   | Carlos A. Cabrera     |
|   | Executive Chairman    |
|   |                  |
| Date:  | March 17, 2014        |

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Criminal No. 11-299 (WJM)
v.
KARLIS KARKLINS, et al. : ORDER

Upon application of the United States Attorney for the
District of New Jersey (by Seth B. Kosto, Assistant United States
Attorney), for an order unsealing the docket sheet, the
Indictment, and all related papers in the above-captioned matter,
and good and sufficient cause having been shown,

IT IS on this i ¥K day of January, 2012,

ORDERED that the Sealing Order previously entered in
the above-captioned matter at the time the grand jury returned
its indictment is no longer in effect; and it is further

ORDERED that the docket sheet, the Indictment, and all

related papers in the above-captioned matter not otherwise sealed

by virtue of separate sealing orders that entered on or after

LZILZ

fon “WxLLZAM J. MARTINI
United ates District Judge

June 15, 20llare hereby unsealed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6629

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus NATHANIEL DUNLAP, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CR-95-57-4, CA-98-64-4) Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 15, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nathaniel Dunlap, Appellant Pro Se. Janet S. Reincke, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Nathaniel Dunlap seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Dunlap , Nos. CR-95-57-4;CA-98-64-4 (E.D. Va. Apr. 20, 1999). 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.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of NEW FIBER CLOTH TECHNOLOGY, INC., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), do hereby certify that: (1) The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 (the "Form 10-K") of the Company 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   Dated: April 23, 2007 /s/Yao De Rong
Yao DeRong,
Chief Executive Officer/s/Parker Seto
Parker Seto,
Chief Financial Officer
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00226-CR

Donny Ray Scott

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 271st District Court

of Wise County (CR16270)

October 17, 2013

Opinion by Judge Campbell

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _________________________________

 Judge Charles F. Campbell
#### Wilson and others *v.*Rockwell and others.

*(Circuit Court, D. Colorado.*

December 15, 1886.)

Ikjunction—Trespass—Title.

A party stowing an equitable title to realty will be protected against trespassers by injunction, tbougb the location of the legal title lias not been finally determined.

Motion for Injunction.

*Hugh Butler,*for complainants.

*L. C. Rockwell, per se,*for defendants.

Brewer, J.

The facts stated in the bill give complainants a clear right to a preliminary injunction. It is immaterial whether the legal title be in complainants or the Woodmass of Alston Company. The dispute between them does not concern trespassers. Both parties are in court, the company being made defendant. The full equitable title ownership is with complainants, and a court of equity will protect the owners, as against trespassers, although the location of the legal title has not been finally determined. The allegations of the bill are met by affidavits and other testimony on the part of the defendants. The truth is in doubt. I shall not attempt to determine it now, nor comment, on the testimony, further than to say that Gwynn, the vendor to complainants, and Gwynn, the witness, do not speak in the same way. A little cross-examination may be helpful. The case made by the bill is shaken, but by testimony, some of which at least is open to strong suspicions.

A preliminary injunction will be granted as prayed for, upon the giving of a bond in the sum of $10,000, with two sureties, to be approved by the clerk of this court, conditioned to pay all damages caused by this order, if the same shall finally be set aside. The complainants must also proceed, with all reasonable speed, to have the legal title determined.
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION





In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of CYBRA Corporation. (the “Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Harold Brand, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: May 16, 2011
/s/ Harold BrandHarold BrandChief Executive Officer
#### Brock *v.*The State.

Xumpkin, J. — According to the evidence in behalf of the State, interpreted, not by its mere letter, but by its substantial import in the light of actual facts and of physical laws and the ordinary principles of human nature, the intercourse in December, 1891, was neither rape nor seduction, but fornication only. This being so, it was legally impossible that the offense of seduction could have been committed by the same man on the same woman in February thereafter. Applying the law correctly to the evidence, the verdict was unwarranted, and the court erred in not granting a new trial.

October 8,1894.

Indictment for seduction. Before Judge Milner. Bade superior court. March term, 1894.

*Judgment reversed.*

*475T. J. Lumpkin, J. G. Hale, B. T. Brock and J. W. Harris, Jr., for plaintiff in error.

A. W. Bite, solicitor-general, *contra.*
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Criminal Action No. 11-99 (JLL)

Plaintiffs,

ORDER

V.

ANDREW COX,

Defendant.

THiS MATTER comes before the Court by way of Defendant’s motion to withdraw his

plea of guilty [Docket Entry No. 95]. For the reasons stated in the Court’s corresponding

Opinion dated July 30, 2012,

IT IS on this 30th day ofJuly, 2012,

ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty [Docket Entry No.

95] is DENIED; and it is further

ORDERED that the following motions are all DENIED AS MOOT: Defendant’s

motion to dismiss the Superseding Complaint and Indictment [Docket Entry No. 88];

Defendant’s motion to produce grand jury materials [Docket Entry No. 92]; Defendant’s motion

for discovery [Docket Entry No. 78]; Defendant’s motion to declare his innocence as to “the six

dated counts on which [he] previously pled guilty” and for the return of property seized by

pretrial services while on bail [Docket Entry No. 108]; Defendant’s motion to disclose the reason

for sealing [Docket Entry No. 90]; and Defendant’s motion for pretrial services to produce the

1
search warrant for its March 23, 2011 search and seizure [Docket Entry Nos. 87, 113]; and it is

further

ORDERED that Defendant’s sentencing is hereby set for Wednesday, August 8, 2012

at 1:30 p.m. before the Undersigned.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Linares

States District Judge

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 ZipGlobal Holdings, Inc. (the
“Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Michael C. Lee, Principal Executive Officer and the Principal Financial Officer
of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
knowledge:





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





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




ZIPGLOBAL
      HOLDINGS, INC.Dated:
      November 12, 2009
              
              /s/ MICHAEL C. LEEMichael
      C. LeePresident, Chief
      Executive Officer and
                Chairman
                (Principal
      Executive Officer)
                (Principal
      Financial/Accounting
Officer)
Case 2:11-mj-07068-CLW Document 9 Filed 08/09/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 18
Case 2:11-mj-07068-CLW Document 9 Filed 08/09/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 19
Case 2:11-mj-07068-CLW Document 9 Filed 08/09/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 20
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7338

GREGORY LYNN GORDON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BRIAN CLAYTON HUNCKE, Detective; BRIAN WAYNE KEZIAH, 

Detective; EDDIE CATHEY, Sheriff; UNION COUNTY SHERIFF’S 

OFFICE; MILES HELMS, Attorney,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, 

Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:11-cv-00257-RJC)

Submitted: January 12, 2012 Decided: January 18, 2012

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory Lynn Gordon, Appellant Pro Se. William L. Hill, James 

Demarest Secor, III, FRAZIER HILL & FURY, RLLP, Greensboro, 

North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Gregory Lynn Gordon appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action for failure to 

state a claim after a 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006) review. 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Gordon v. Huncke, No. 3:11-cv-00257-RJC (W.D.N.C. Sept. 

28, 2011). We also deny all pending motions. 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
EXHIBIT 3

Case 3:11-cv-03788-FLW-LHG Document 95-5 Filed 10/05/12 Page 1 of 11 PageID: 1320
Case 3:11-cv-03788-FLW-LHG Document 95-5 Filed 10/05/12 Page 2 of 11 PageID: 1321
Case 3:11-cv-03788-FLW-LHG Document 95-5 Filed 10/05/12 Page 3 of 11 PageID: 1322
Case 3:11-cv-03788-FLW-LHG Document 95-5 Filed 10/05/12 Page 4 of 11 PageID: 1323
Case 3:11-cv-03788-FLW-LHG Document 95-5 Filed 10/05/12 Page 5 of 11 PageID: 1324
Case 3:11-cv-03788-FLW-LHG Document 95-5 Filed 10/05/12 Page 6 of 11 PageID: 1325
Case 3:11-cv-03788-FLW-LHG Document 95-5 Filed 10/05/12 Page 7 of 11 PageID: 1326
Case 3:11-cv-03788-FLW-LHG Document 95-5 Filed 10/05/12 Page 8 of 11 PageID: 1327
Case 3:11-cv-03788-FLW-LHG Document 95-5 Filed 10/05/12 Page 9 of 11 PageID: 1328
Case 3:11-cv-03788-FLW-LHG Document 95-5 Filed 10/05/12 Page 10 of 11 PageID: 1329
Case 3:11-cv-03788-FLW-LHG Document 95-5 Filed 10/05/12 Page 11 of 11 PageID: 1330
Case 2:11-cr-00353-JLL Document 28 Filed 09/15/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 121
Case 2:11-cr-00353-JLL Document 28 Filed 09/15/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 122
Case 2:11-cr-00353-JLL Document 28 Filed 09/15/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 123
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5065 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5065

 To repeal certain sections of the Act of May 26, 1936, pertaining to 
                          the Virgin Islands.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 13, 2004

 Mrs. Christensen introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                       the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To repeal certain sections of the Act of May 26, 1936, pertaining to 
                          the Virgin Islands.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF CERTAIN LAWS PERTAINING TO THE VIRGIN ISLANDS.

    (a) Repeal.--Sections 1 through 6 of the Act of May 26, 1936, 
(Chapter 450; 49 Stat. 1372-1373; 48 U.S.C. 1401-1401e) are repealed.
    (b) Effective Date.--This section shall be deemed to have taken 
effect on July 22, 1954.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of PRIMEDIA Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Charles J. Stubbs, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ CHARLES J. STUBBS                
|Charles J. Stubbs,                   
|President and Chief Executive Officer

November 7, 2008

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

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.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

BETTY MILLER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

V. ) Case No. 10-CV-117-MJR-PMF

)

MERCK & CO., INC., )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

REAGAN, District Judge:

Plaintiff Miller’s February 11, 2011, complaint (Doc. 4) alleges that she suffered

damages from using Defendant Merck & Company’s drug Fosamax. Now before the Court is

Defendant’s March 28, 2011, Motion to Stay All Proceedings (Doc. 33). Stated simply, Defendant

asks this Court to stay any further proceedings in the Southern District of Illinois pending a ruling

by the MDL Panel on whether to establish a multi-district proceeding consolidating this case and

other similar actions from around the country for pretrial proceedings. 

Although cognizant that Defendant has moved the MDL Panel for the creation of an

MDL proceeding, the Court DENIES at this time the motion to stay all proceedings (Doc. 33). The

undersigned Judge generally does not stay pretrial proceedings pending MDL transfer. Federal Rule

of Procedure of the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation 1.5 provides that the pendency of a

motion for transfer to the MDL “does not affect or suspend orders and pretrial proceedings in the

district court in which the action is pending and does not in any way limit the pretrial jurisdiction

of that court.” Similarly, the Manual for Complex Litigation, Federal Judicial Center, § 20.131 and

§ 22.35 (4th ed.2004), states that during the pendency of a motion for MDL transfer, the court in

1

Case 3:11-cv-03174-JAP-LHG Document 34 Filed 03/30/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 147
which the action was filed retains jurisdiction over the case and need not suspend proceedings.

The undersigned Judge will closely monitor any further orders from the MDL Panel, including any

conditional or final transfer order which may issue herein. In the meantime, the undersigned Judge

has already tracked the case (“TRACK D”) and set trial for April 16, 2012. Track D is designed to

accommodate complex cases. Insofar as the Scheduling Order sets various discovery deadlines, the

parties are reminded that, they may modify the deadlines set in the schedule by written stipulation,

except that they may not modify a date if such modification would impact the deadline for filing

dispositive motions, or the date of any court appearance. Fed.R.Civ.P. 29.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 30, 2011

s/ Michael J. Reagan 

MICHAEL J. REAGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 3:11-cv-03174-JAP-LHG Document 34 Filed 03/30/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 148