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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1667

JOHN CUTONILLI,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF MARYLAND,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

James K. Bredar, District Judge. (1:15-cv-00629-JKB)

Submitted: August 24, 2017 Decided: August 28, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Cutonilli, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Holdsworth Bowen, Assistant Attorney General, 

Pikesville, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

John Cutonilli appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion to amend his 

complaint and dismissing his claims challenging the legality of the Maryland Firearm 

Safety Act of 2013, Md. Code Ann., Crim. L. §§ 4-301 to 4-306 (West 2017), under 

Maryland’s Constitution and the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United 

States Constitution. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Cutonilli v. 

Maryland, No. 1:15-cv-00629-JKB (D. Md. Sept. 29, 2015, Apr. 14, 2017, & May 24, 

2017). 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S BALANCE SHEET, STATEMENT OF INCOME AND STATEMENT OF CASH FLOW AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               16,567,956
<ALLOWANCES>                                   951,478
<INVENTORY>                                  2,742,812
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            21,916,684
<PP&E>                                     143,495,033
<DEPRECIATION>                              81,210,585
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             128,148,165
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,140,503
<BONDS>                                    100,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  6,000,000
<COMMON>                                       159,388
<OTHER-SE>                                (36,512,069)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               128,148,165
<SALES>                                      3,861,957
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            49,088,621
<CGS>                                        2,999,452
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               27,802,666
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,027,905
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               222,744
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           7,650,415
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,384,334)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,069,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,315,334)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              1,863,020
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,178,354)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





Each
      of
      the undersigned hereby certifies, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his or her
      capacity as an officer of e.Digital Corporation (the "Company"), that, to his
      or
      her knowledge, the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period
      ended September 30, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
      contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operation of the Company.





Dated:
      November 14, 2005


/s/
                ROBERT PUTNAM


Robert
                Putnam, Interim Chief Accounting Officer, Treasurer and Corporate Secretary (Principal Financial
              Officer)




Dated:
      November 14, 2005


/s/
                ALEX DIAZ


Alex
                Diaz, Chairman of the Board, (Principal Executive Officer)
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-50194 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JULIO ORTIZ-GONZALEZ,

also known as Jorge Barrientos-Gonzalez,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-00-CR-1441-ALL-DB

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

August 23, 2001

Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Julio Ortiz-Gonzalez appeals the 70-month term of

imprisonment imposed following his guilty plea conviction of

illegally reentering the United States after removal in violation

of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Ortiz-Gonzalez argues that his sentence

should not have exceeded the two-year maximum term of

imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Ortiz-Gonzalez

acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by the Supreme

Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S.
No. 01-50194 

-2-

224 (1998), but seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court

review in light of the decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530

U.S. 466 (2000). 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001). OrtizGonzalez’s argument is foreclosed. The judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an

appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

 AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 7931** 

JARON BRICE , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Anthony John Trenga , District Judge. ( 1:15

- cv - 01274

- AJT

- MSN )

Submitted : April 21, 2016 Decided: April 26, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Jaron Brice, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Jaron Brice , a federal prisoner, appeals the district court ’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We
have reviewe d the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Brice’s motion for summary judgment and his motion for bail, and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court.
Brice v. United Sta tes , No. 1:15

- cv - 01274

- AJT

- MSN (E.D. Va. Oct.
30, 2015) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISS ED
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 77 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 77

       To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 7, 2015

  Mr. Vitter introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Patient Choice Restoration Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL.

    (a) In General.--The following Acts, and the amendments made by 
such Acts, are repealed:
            (1) The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public 
        Law 111-148).
            (2) The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 
        2010 (Public Law 111-152).
    (b) Effect of Law.--The provisions of law amended by the Acts 
referred to in subsection (a) are restored as if such Acts had never 
been enacted.
                                 <all>
```
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document




































 



 
 

  Exhibit 10.20    
    


 
 

  TRUE RELIGION APPAREL, INC.
  SUMMARY OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS COMPENSATION    
    


        The following table sets forth the Company's current compensation arrangements with its non-employee directors. 



			
	Annual Retainer:	 	 $12,500 per calendar quarter ($50,000 annually)
	
Board Meetings	
 	
 $1,500 for each meeting attended in excess of 10 during any calendar year
	
Committee Meetings	
 	
 $1,500 per meeting ($750 if attended by telephone)
	
Committee Chairs	
 	
 Audit Committee—Annual Retainer of $15,000

Compensation Committee—Annual Retainer of $15,000
	
Restricted Stock Grant	
 	
 A grant of restricted shares annually on the first business day of the calendar year with an aggregate market value of $105,000. To vest in three equal annual installments on the date of grant, the first anniversary
of the date of grant and the second anniversary of the date of grant.














QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.20


TRUE RELIGION APPAREL, INC. SUMMARY OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS COMPENSATION
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 7716

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. RODNEY WAYNE BARNES, a/k/a C , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Charlottesville

. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. ( 3:10

- cr - 00032

- NKM

- 1 ; 3:13

- cv - 80601

- NKM

- RSB )

Submitted : June 16, 2021 Decided: July 7, 2021

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Rodney Wayne Barnes , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Rodney Wayne Barnes seeks to appeal t he district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the district court’s prior order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 225 5 motion

. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal ability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)( B )

. See generally United States v.
McRae , 793 F.3d 392, 400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015) . 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate b oth that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have i ndependently reviewed the record and conclude that Barnes has not made the requisite showing. Barnes is correct that the district court erred in dismissing his motion as a successive and unauthorized § 2255 motion. Because Barnes alleged that the distric t court failed to address one of the claims he raised in his § 2255 motion, his motion challenged the integrity of the § 2255 proceedings and therefore was a true Rule 60(b) motion. See McRae , 793 F.3d at 397. However, as the district court stated, in de nying Barnes’ § 2255 motion, the court had considered and rejected the claim Barnes contends3 the court overlooked. Therefore, Barnes’ Rule 60(b) motion failed to state a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right

. Accordingly, we deny a certi ficate of appealability 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 argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 80 

To prohibit appropriated funds from being used in contravention of section 

642(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility 

Act of 1996. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 7, 2015 

Mr. VITTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To prohibit appropriated funds from being used in contravention of section 642(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform 

and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. RESTRICTION OF COPS FUNDING FOR SANC4 TUARY CITIES. 

5 None of the amounts appropriated in any Act for the 

6 Community Oriented Policing Services Program may be 

7 used in contravention of section 642(a) of the Illegal ImVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:34 Jan 13, 2015 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S80.IS S80

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 80 IS

1 migration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 

2 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1373(a)). 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstancesset forth in 5THCIR. R. 47.5.4.

 

1

21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(A); 18 U.S.C. § 2.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-11548

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MOISES VIRGEN CHAVEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(USDC No. 2:96-CR-026-1)

July 29, 1997

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, KING and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Moises Virgen Chavez appeals his conviction and sentence for possession

with the intent to distribute methamphetamine and aiding and abetting,1contending
 

2United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (citing United States

v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993)).

 

3Olano.

 

4United States v. Seals, 987 F.2d 1102 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v. Kelley, 981 F.2d

1464 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v. Dovali-Avila, 895 F.2d 206 (5th Cir. 1990).

2

that the district court erred in admitting evidence seized from the search of his

vehicle and permitting testimony of statements he made after discovery of the

methamphetamine in a false gas tank on his truck. The evidence was not

challenged with a contemporaneous objection and our review is under the plain

error standard. Under Fed. R. Crim. P.52(b) we may correct forfeited errors only

when the appellant establishes: (1) that there is an error, (2) that the error is clear

or obvious, and (3) that the error affects defendant’s substantial rights.2 If these

factors are shown, the decision to correct the forfeited error is within our sound

discretion which we will not exercise unlessthe errorseriously affectsthe fairness,

integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.3 Our review of Chavez’s

fourth amendment complaint in light of the record discloses no such violation.4

Chavez also contendsthat the prosecutorimproperly commented on his postarrest silence by asking why he did not tell the arresting officers the exculpatory

story related at trial. Chavez was not silent after his arrest but then opined that he

transported the methamphetamine under duress from unnamed persons. In that
 

5Lofton v. Wainwright, 620 F.2d 74 (5th Cir. 1980).

3

setting, it was not inappropriate for the prosecutor to challenge Chavez regarding

the withholding of the testimony advanced at trial.5

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 32.1****CERTIFICATIONS OF PERIODIC REPORT**I, Raymond M. Trewhella, Principal Executive Officer of Glassmaster Company (the “Company”),certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that,to the best of my knowledge: **•**      the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the annual period endedAugust 31, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and **•**      the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Dated:    November 29, 2006                                                             /s/ Raymond M. Trewhella   Raymond M. Trewhella                                       Principal Executive Officer   I, Nathan G. Leaphart III, CPA, Principal Accounting Officer and Principal Financial Officer ofGlassmaster Company (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of my knowledge: **•**      the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the annual period endedAugust 31, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and **•**      the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Dated:    November 29, 2006     /s/ Nathan G. Leaphart III, CPA   Nathan G. Leaphart III, CPA   Principal Accounting Officer and Principal Financial Officer   
- 42 -
**Exhibit
        32.1**
 
 **CERTIFICATION
        OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**
 **PURSUANT
        TO**
 **18
        U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**
 **AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 Each
        of
        the undersigned hereby certifies, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
        pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his or her
        capacity as an officer of e.Digital Corporation (the "Company"), that, to
        his or
        her knowledge, the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period
        ended September 30, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section
        13(a)
        or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
        contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
        financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
 
 Date:
        November 14, 2008
  /s/
        Robert Putnam
 
 Robert
                  Putnam,
                Interim
                    Chief Accounting Officer
                  (Principal
                    Financial Officer)
 
 
 Date:
        November 14, 2008
  /s/
        William Blakeley
 
 William
                  Blakeley,
                President
                    and Chief Technical Officer,
                  (Principal
                    Executive Officer)
Exhibit 10.27

        Amendment to CoVest Bancshares, Inc. Employment Agreement

This Amendment is made effective as of July 28, 2003, by and between CoVest
Bancshares, Inc. (the "Company"), CoVest Banc, National Association (the
"Bank") and James L. Roberts ("Executive").

WITNESSETH

Whereas, Company, Bank and Executive have previously entered in that certain
Employment Agreement effective as of January 20, 1999, and have previously
amended the same (as amended, the "Agreement"); and

WHEREAS, Company, Bank and Executive wish further to amend the Agreement to
clarify certain provisions thereof;

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and mutual covenants herein
contained, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which consideration is mutually acknowledged by the parties, it
is hereby agreed as follows:

2. Section 3(e) is amended to read as follows:

"(e) BENEFIT PLANS.  Except as set forth below, Executive shall be eligible to
participate in or receive benefits under any benefit plans and arrangements of
the Company and Bank in which executive officers of the Company and the Bank
are generally entitled to participate including, but not limited to, the
profit sharing/401(k) plan, health-and-accident plans, medical coverage,
disability or any other benefit plans or arrangements, subject to and on a
basis consistent with the terms, conditions and overall administration of such
plans and arrangements applicable to executive officers of the Company and the
Bank generally.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event of (i) the
termination of Executive's employment with the Company and the Bank (other
than by the Company for Cause (as defined in Paragraph 4(d) of this
Agreement)) after the fifth anniversary of the Effective Date, or (ii) the
termination of Executive's employment with the Company and Bank under
circumstances constituting an Event of Termination (as defined in Paragraph
4(b) of this Agreement), the Company, or its successor, shall:  (x) continue
Executive's health insurance coverage comparable to the coverage as of the
date of termination of Executive's employment until the earlier of the date
Executive (A) would be eligible for coverage under Medicare, or any successor
to the Medicare program, or (B) reaches the age of 67; (y) not require
Executive to pay any greater amount for such coverage as Executive shall be
paying as of the date of his termination of employment; and (z) permit
Executive to add dependents to such coverage at the same cost, if any, paid by
similarly situated senior executives for dependent coverage."

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be duly executed
at Des Plaines, Illinois on the date above set forth.

CoVest Bancshares, Inc.

By: /s/ FRANK A. SVOBODA, JR.
    Frank A. Svoboda, Jr.
    Chairman of the Board

CoVest Banc, National Association

By: /s/ FRANK A. SVOBODA, JR.
    Frank A. Svoboda, Jr.
    Chairman of the Board

By: /s/ JAMES L. ROBERTS
    James L. Roberts