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

No. 22
- 6783

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. LARRY ANTHONY LADSON, JR. , Defendant

- Appellant

.

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

. Donald C. Coggins, Jr. , District Judge. ( 6:18

- cr - 00181

- DCC

- 1 ; 6:21

- cv 00503

- DCC )

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

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Larry Anthony Ladson, Jr. , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6783 Doc: 5 Filed: 03/21/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Larry Anthony Ladson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s 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 appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)( B ). 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 distric t court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.
Davis , 580 U.S. 100, 115

- 17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling i s 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 independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ladson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate 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 USCA4 Appeal: 22-6783 Doc: 5 Filed: 03/21/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
Exhibit 18.1








{Frazer Frost, LLP Letterhead}














Board of Directors


Charles & Colvard, Ltd.


300 Perimeter Park Drive, Suite A


Morrisville, North Carolina  27560








Dear Directors,





We are providing this letter to you for inclusion as an exhibit to your Form 10-Q filing pursuant to Item 601 of Regulation S-K.





We have been provided a copy of Charles & Colvard, Ltd.’s (the “Company”) quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010.  Note 5, therein describes a change in accounting principle for inventory costing from the first-in, first-out method to the average cost method.  It should be understood that the preferability of one acceptable method of accounting over another for inventory costing has not been addressed in any authoritative accounting literature, and in expressing our concurrence below, we have relied on management’s determination that this change in accounting principle is preferable.  Based on our reading of management’s stated reasons and justification for this change in accounting principle in the Form 10-Q and our discussions with management as to their judgment about the relevant business planning factors relating to the change, we concur with management that such change represents, in the Company’s circumstances, the adoption of a preferable accounting principle in conformity with Accounting Standard Codification 250-10, “Accounting Changes and Error Corrections.”  We have not audited any financial statements of the Company as of any date or for any period subsequent to December 31, 2009.  Accordingly, our comments are subject to change upon completion of an audit of the financial statements covering the period of the accounting change.








Very truly yours,/s/ FRAZER FROST, LLP








Little Rock, Arkansas


May 13, 2010
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 Charles & Colvard, Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Dennis M. Reed, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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



|                  
|------------------
|/s/ Dennis M. Reed
|Dennis M. Reed    
|President         
|August 8, 2008
#### William NISWANGER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Ashley POWELL, D.P.O II District Parole Officer; Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles; Glenn Geyer, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-41107

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 19, 2008.

William Niswanger, Huntsville, TX, pro se.

*343Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

William Niswanger, Texas prisoner # 636282, filed a pro se, in forma pauperis civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the above named defendants. On August 22, 2007, the district court entered final judgment dismissing the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l). Niswanger filed a notice of appeal and a motion to reopen time for filing an appeal pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6) on November 5, 2007. The district court denied the motion to reopen.

If necessary, this court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction sua sponte. *Mosley v. Cozby,*813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir.1987). A timely notice of appeal in a civil case is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” *Bowles v. Russell,*— U.S. —, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 2366, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007). Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A) requires that the notice of appeal in a civil action be filed within 30 days of entry of the judgment or order from which the appeal is taken. Niswanger’s notice of appeal from the district court’s August 22, 2007, dismissal of his § 1983 complaint was due on September 21, 2007.

On appeal, Niswanger does not address the untimely filing of his notice of appeal or the district court’s denial of his motion to reopen under Fed. RApp. P. 4(a)(6). Even if Niswanger had challenged the district court’s denial, he cannot show error because he has not asserted, on appeal or in the district court, that he did not receive notice of entry of final judgment more than 21 days after August 22, 2007. The district court did not err in finding that Niswanger failed to fulfill the requirements of Rule 4(a)(6)(A). Niswanger failed to file a timely notice of appeal. This court lacks jurisdiction over any appeal from the judgment of August 22, 2007. *See Bowles,*127 S.Ct. at 2366.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

*

 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.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-1669 

_____________________________

CLAUDIE PARROTT WOOD,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the County Court for Santa Rosa County.

Robert Hilliard, Judge.

June 27, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, ROBERTS, and RAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Lori A. Willner, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
EXHIBIT
32.1





STATEMENT
REQUIRED BY 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 on Form 10-Q of Envirosafe Corp. (the
"Company") for the three months ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Guoqiang Zhan, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify
that:




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




* the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




/s/ Guoqiang
Zhan


Guoqiang
Zhan


Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer








Date:
August 12, 2008





This
certification accompanies this 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.
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 033-54741,
No. 33-66516, No. 333-00903, No. 333-13099 and 333-114446) and Form S-8 (No. 333-29711,
No. 333-95255, No. 333-95259, No. 333-75732, No. 333-98107, No. 333-103682 and
No. 333-103684) of Western Gas Resources, Inc. of our report dated March     , 2005 relating to the financial statements, management's assessment of the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.

|/s/PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP |  | 
|----------------------------- |  | 
|Denver, Colorado              |  | 
|March 12, 2005                |  | 

---



QuickLinks
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


                           GTECH HOLDINGS CORPORATION

                           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 Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of GTECH Holdings
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending February 22,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, W. Bruce Turner, President and Chief Executive Officer 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:

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
   respect, the financial condition and result of operation of the Company.


                                        GTECH HOLDINGS CORPORATION


Date: June 25, 2003                    BY /s/ W. Bruce Turner
                                          ------------------------------------
                                          W. Bruce Turner
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer

                                     -134-
#### The Amos C. Barstow.

*(District Court, E. D. New York.*

April *3, 1882.)*

Collision — Approaching Head on — Duty to Port Helm.

Where a sail-vessel and a tug were approaching each other head on, or nearly so, and a collision ensued, *held,*that the tug was in fault in not porting her helm.

*Carpenter & Mosher,*for libellant.

*Miller, Peckham & Dixon,*for respondent.

Benedict, D. J.

There is in this case an abundance of conflicting testimony, but the controlling facts can be discovered without much difficulty. The two vessels were rounding the lower point of New York island, sailing in opposite directions on curved lines; the Amos 0. Barstow being bound into the North river, and the tug bound to pier *3,*in the East river. They came in collision off pier 2, in the East river. At the time of the blow both vessels were bearing in towards the New York piers, the Barstow under a port helm, and the tug under a starboard helm. If the vessels, as they neared each other, were approaching head on, or nearly so, the tug was of course in fault, because under such circumstances it would be her duty to port her helm instead of starboarding, as she did. That the vessels were approaching head on or nearly so, as they neared each other, is disclosed by the testimony of the pilot of the tug. From the testimony of this witness it is evident that he saw the Barstow approaching him nearly head on; that he starboarded his helm, although he saw that the Barstow was then porting; and that the collision was caused by an effort on his part to shoot in to pier 3 ahead of the Barstow, when it was his duty to allow the Barstow to pass between him and pier 3, as she had the right and was evidently intending to do.

My conclusion, therefore, is that the collision in question was caused by the fault of the tug, and not by any fault on the part of the Barstow, and accordingly the libel is dismissed, with costs.
#### In the Matter of the Foreclosure of Tax Liens by City of Rensselaer. City of Rensselaer, Respondent; Robert E. Harris, Appellant.

Submitted January 14, 2008;

decided March 18, 2008

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for a stay dismissed as academic.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of
our report dated March 23, 2001 included in this Form 10-K, into American
Biogenetic Sciences, Inc.'s previously filed Registration Statements on Form
S-8 (File Nos. 33-35992, 33-39683, 33-51240, 33-65416, 333-09473, 333-45644,
333-59351 and 333-93071), and previously filed Registration Statements on Form
S-3 (File Nos. 333-13615, 333-13619, 333-13623, 333-14447, 333-36106,
333-36110, 333-36116, 333-59345, 333-60117 and 333-69735).



Melville, New York
March 29, 2001
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
      THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
MARCH 31, 1999 YEAR-TO-DATE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS REPORTED ON FORM 10-Q
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY  BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENT
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001014920
<NAME>                        OPTIKA INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         5,041
<SECURITIES>                                   2,693
<RECEIVABLES>                                  4,465
<ALLOWANCES>                                     443
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              12,435     
<PP&E>                                         5,435
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,401
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                18,193
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          6,532
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                           7
<OTHER-SE>                                    11,654
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  18,193
<SALES>                                        2,876
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               5,178
<CGS>                                            148
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,098
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               4,545
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (431)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (151)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (280)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (280)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.04)
        


</TABLE>
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF LYNCHBURG

#### Ricky Lee Hankins v. Commonwealth of Virginia

October 6, 2003

Case No. CL02023508

By Judge Mosby G. Perrow, III

Ricky Lee Hankins was in the custody of the Department of Corrections of the Commonwealth of Virginia because of felony convictions at the time the cause of action alleged under the Virginia Tort Claims Act accrued. His motion for judgment was filed approximately twenty-one months after his notice of claim. The question is whether the action is time barred under the Act or whether the. running of the applicable limitation was tolled because of the plaintiffs confinement.

The statute of limitations set forth in § 8.01-195.7 of the Virginia Tort Claims Act is expressly subject to the tolling provisions of § 8.01-229 which provides in pertinent part that “if a person entitled to bring any action is at the time the cause of action accrues ... *incapacitated,*such person may bring it within the prescribed limitation period after such disability is removed... Virginia Code § 8.01-229(A)(6) (emphasis supplied). While a person convicted of a felony is a person under a “disability” during the period he is confined, Virginia Code § 8.01-2(6)(a), such a person is not “incapacitated” within the meaning of § 8.01-229(A)(1) so as to toll the running the statute of limitations. See Virginia Code § 8.01-2(6)(d), (e); W. H. Bryson, *Virginia Civil Procedure,*atp. 168 (3ded. 1997); Sinclair and Middleditch, *Virginia Civil Procedure,*§ 4.12(A) (3d ed. 1998); compare Virginia Code § 8.01-229(A)(3). Plaintiffs “disability” was not one that tolled the statute of limitations. Therefore, plaintiffs action was not timely filed and is barred by § 8.01-195.7 of the Virginia Tort Claims Act.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 19, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 43777]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19855]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health; Notice 
of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, 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 Center for Complementary and 
Integrative Health Special Emphasis Panel; Fellowship, Career 
Development, and Research Grant Programs.
    Date: November 8, 2017.
    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 
Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Viatcheslav A. Soldatenkov, MD, Ph.D., 
Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review, Division of 
Extramural Activities, NCCIH/NIH, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 
401, Bethesda, MD 20892, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8efde1e2eaeffaebe0e5e1f8f8cee3efe7e2a0e0e7e6a0e9e1f8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ee9d81828a8f9a8b8085819898ae838f8782c0808786c0898198">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.213, 
Research and Training in Complementary and Integrative Health, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 13, 2017.
Michelle Trout,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-19855 Filed 9-18-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### In the Matter of Cathedral Properties Corp., Appellant, v Jacques Blinbaum et al., Respondents.

Submitted January 22, 2008;

decided March 18, 2008

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
Exhibit 32.2








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





In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2016 of Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. (the “Company”) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ismail Dawood, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


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

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










/s/ Ismail Dawood


Name: Ismail Dawood


Title: Chief Financial Officer





March 2, 2017
### THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RU LE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court
Jamul Ratub El, Petitioner,

v. State of South Carolina, Respondent. Appellate Case No. 2009-140686

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Appeal From York County Lee S. Alford, Circuit Court Judge
Memorandum Opinion No. 2012-MO-038 Submitted September 20, 2012 – Filed October 10, 2012

DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED
Appellate Defender Su san B. Hackett, of South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.Attorney General Alan M. Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salle y W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General J. Rutledge Johnson, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: We granted a writ of certiora ri to review the denial of Petitioner's application for post-conviction relief. We now dismiss the writ as improvidently granted.

DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.

TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY , KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., concur.