alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

JASON TODD DAVIS, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 12-6206 

(D.C. No. 5:01-CR-00181-M-2) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 

AND DENYING LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 MOTION

Before LUCERO, O'BRIEN, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges. 

In 2008, Jason Todd Davis filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion claiming ineffective 

assistance of counsel. Approximately two and one half years later he sought to amend 

the § 2255 motion. The district court denied the relief originally sought and denied leave 

to amend because the request was not timely presented. Davis sought a Certificate of 

Appealability (COA) on both issues, which we denied. United States v. Davis, 426 F. 

App’x 622, 625 (10th Cir. 2011). 

About a year after our decision, Davis filed a Rule 60(b) motion resurrecting his 

arguments about the district court’s refusal to permit him to amend his § 2255 motion. 

He included four new claims under § 2255. The district court denied the motion. Davis 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

December 26, 2012

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
- 2 - 

appealed from the decision. 

A COA is required to appeal from the denial of a true Rule 60(b) motion. Spitznas 

v. Boone, 464 F.3d 1213, 1218 (10th Cir. 2006). Davis did not seek a COA, but we treat 

his notice of appeal and brief as an implied request for a COA. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(2). 

We deny his request for a COA. 

Davis’s new § 2255 claims are second or successive, requiring our approval before 

they can be addressed by the district court. In re Shines, 696 F.3d 1330, 1332 (10th Cir. 

2012). His claims are utterly without merit; we deny leave to pursue them. 

DISMISSED. 

Entered by the Court: 

Terrence L. O’Brien 

United States Circuit Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                                         

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED 
FROM THE BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOUNDED ON
PAGES 1-3 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-QSB, FOR THE YEAR-TO-DATE AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1
       
<S>                                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                         JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                           JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                                   3,502,394
<SECURITIES>                                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                              393,031
<ALLOWANCES>                                               119,000
<INVENTORY>                                                391,942
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         4,173,732
<PP&E>                                                     594,089
<DEPRECIATION>                                             179,957
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           4,622,864
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      985,189
<BONDS>                                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                       446
<OTHER-SE>                                               3,541,691
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             4,622,864
<SALES>                                                    898,894
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           898,894
<CGS>                                                      836,758
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            1,313,786
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           944,694
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                          27,886
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         (1,387,472)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   350
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     (1,387,822)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                            (1,321,196)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                 (.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 (.25)
         


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
             FROM THE ACCOMPANYING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED
             IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                  <C>           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        9-MOS         9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    DEC-31-2000   DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                       JAN-01-2000   JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                         Sep-30-2000   Sep-30-1999
<CASH>                                   203,051      117,375
<SECURITIES>                                    0            0
<RECEIVABLES>                              34,715       22,772
<ALLOWANCES>                                    0            0
<INVENTORY>                                     0            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          430,500      393,708
<PP&E>                                     45,071       23,694
<DEPRECIATION>                                  0            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          1,332,620      502,028
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     100,282      108,759
<BONDS>                                         0            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0            0
<PREFERRED>                                     0            0
<COMMON>                                        9            7
<OTHER-SE>                              1,039,841      232,176
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            1,332,620      502,028
<SALES>                                   153,044       74,036
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          153,044       74,036
<CGS>                                      52,952       29,310
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              52,952       29,310
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          142,380       66,647
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              0            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (42,288)     100,556
<INCOME-TAX>                               49,608       40,222
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (91,896)      60,334
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0            0
<CHANGES>                                       0            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (91,996)      60,334
<EPS-BASIC>                              ($0.50)       $0.85
<EPS-DILUTED>                              ($0.50)       $0.76



</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARY A. NELSON ROGERS,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; CHARLES P. RETTING, IRS Commissioner,

Defendants

- Appellees,

and

PAUL J. ENJALRAN, IRS Officer, Area
#6; et al.

,

Defendants. No. 20

- 17294

D.C. No. 2:19

- cv

- 01564

- TLN

- CKD

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 12, 2021 * *

Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

OCT 15 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 17294

Mary A. Nelson Rogers appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in

her action challenging Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) tax collection efforts. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s

dismissal under F ed eral R ule of Civ il P rocedure 12(b)(1) and (b)(6)

. Davidson v.

Kimberly

- Clark Corp. , 889 F.3d 956, 963 (9th Cir. 2018)

. We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Rogers’s action because Rogers failed

to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556

U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state

a plausible claim for relief); Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish , 382 F.3d 969, 973

(9th Cir. 2004) (a party ’ s conclusory all egations, unwarranted deductions of fact,

or unreasonable inferences need not be accepted as true)

. To the extent Rogers

sought injunctive and equitable relief, such relief is barred by the Anti

- Injunction

Act (the “Act”), which prohibits any attempt to r estrain the IRS’s tax assessment

and collection activities, with limited exceptions that do not apply here. See 26

U.S.C. § 7421(a) (listing statutory exceptions to the Act); Elias v. Connett , 908

F.2d 521, 523, 525 (9th Cir. 1990) (setting forth limited judicial exception to the

Act).

We reject as meritless Rogers’s contention that her due process rights were

violated.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued3 20

- 17294

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations ra ised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). We do not

consider documents not filed with the district court. See United States v. Elias , 921

F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).

All pending motions are denie d.

AFFIRMED.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-67,646-04

EX P ARTE ALBE RT CHARLES MCKINN EY, Appl icant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 20260-D IN THE 336TH DIS TRICT COURT

F ROM F ANNIN C OUNTY
Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisi o n s o f Ar t icle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant wa s convicted of felony driving while intox icated a

nd sentenc ed to imprisonment. Applicant raises a ti me-credit claim, arguing that 6 months and 17 day s has been added to his sentenc e. Applicant has alleg ed fa cts that, if true, mig ht entitle him to relief. Ex parte Spann, 132 S.W .3d 390 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). In these circ umstances, a dditional facts ar e nee ded. As
we held in Ex parte Rodriguez, 334 S.W .2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the appropr iate for

um for finding s of fa ct.2

The trial court shall order the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice’s Offic e of the Gene ral Counsel to file an af

fidavit addre ssing Applicant’s claim that he is beingdenied time cr edit on his senten ce. The aff

idavit shall also indicate whether Applicant has submitt ed the claim to the time
cre dit resolution sy stem of TDCJ , and if so, the date when the claim was submitted. The trial court shall make fi n d i ng s of fact and conclusions of law as to whether Applicant has proper ly exhausted his administrative reme dies as require d by T E X . G O V ’ T C O D E § 501.0081(b)- (c)
. The trial court shall then m ake findings and conclusions as to whether Applica nt is rece iving the proper amount of time cre dit on his sentenc e. The trial court shall also make any other finding s of fac t and conclusions of law that it deems rele vant and appropriate to the dispositi on of Applicant’s claim for ha

beas c orpus re lief. This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fac t issues. The issues shall be resolved within 90 day s of this order
. A supplemental transcr i p t co n t ai n ing all aff idavits and int err og atories or the t ransc ription of t he court repor ter’s notes from any hearing or deposition, along with the trial court’ s supplemental finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law, shall be for war ded to this Court withi n 120 day s of the date of t his order. Any extensions of ti me must be re quested by

the trial cour

t and shall be obtaine d from this Court.
Filed: January

30, 2019 Do not publish
IIB 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3220 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 13, 2011 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 170 Evergreen Square SW in Pine City, Minnesota, as the ‘‘Master Sergeant Daniel L. Fedder Post 

Office’’. 

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


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 3220 RFS

1 SECTION 1. MASTER SERGEANT DANIEL L. FEDDER POST 

2 OFFICE. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 170 Evergreen Square SW in 

5 Pine City, Minnesota, shall be known and designated as 

6 the ‘‘Master Sergeant Daniel L. Fedder Post Office’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Master Sergeant Dan11 iel L. Fedder Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 12, 

2011. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 9 A2 26 2 . CLARENCE LETSON HALL v

. THE STATE.

Fo l l owi n g a ju ry t ri al
, Cl aren ce Let s o n Hal l was co n v i ct ed of o perat i ng a

v eh icl e wi t h o u t ad eq u at el y s ecu ri n g l o ad
, fai lu r e t o d i s p l ay l i cen s e, an d i m p ro p er

t i res

. He fi l ed a m o t i o n fo r n ew t ri al
, wh i ch th e tri al co urt d en ied o n M arch 1 9
, 2 0 1 8.
Hal l t hen fi l ed t h e i n s t an t d i rect ap p eal o n Ap ri l 2 0, 2 0 1 8 . W e l ack ju ri sd i ct i o n

. A n o t i ce o f ap p eal m

u s t b e fi l ed w i t hi n 3 0 d ay s of en t ry o f t h e o rd er s o u g h t to
b e ap p eal ed . OCGA § 5 -6 -3 8 (a). Th e p ro p er an d t i m el y fi l i n g o f a n o t ice o f ap p eal
i s an ab s o l u t e req u i rem en t t o co n fer ju ri s d i ct i o n o n t h i s Co u rt

. Ro wl a n d v. S t a t e , 2 6 4
Ga. 8 7 2 , 8 7 2 (1 ) (4 5 2 SE2 d 7 5 6 ) (1 99 5 ). Becau s e Hal l fi l ed h i s n o t i ce o f ap p eal 3 2
d a y s a ft er en t ry o f t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd er, h i s ap p eal i s u n ti m el y , an d i t i s h e r e b y DISM ISSED fo r l ack o f ju ri s d i ct i o n

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t
h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. June 26, 2019

06/26/2019
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed May 31, 2023.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-0427

Lower Tribunal No. F16-1923

________________

Jimmy Howard,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from 

the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ramiro C. Areces, Judge.

Jimmy Howard, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, LINDSEY and LOBREE, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
**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 Braintech, Inc. (the "Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the six months ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Owen L.J. Jones the Principal 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 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 result of operations of the Company.

 

 

 
| /s/  Owen L.J. Jones |
|----------------------|

Owen L.J. Jones

Principal Executive Officer 

August 10, 2005
Penn Virginia Resource GP, LLC Non-Employee Director Compensatory Summary Sheet



 Exhibit 10.19 
 Penn Virginia Resource GP, LLC 
 Non-Employee Director Compensation Summary Sheet
for 2011 
 Directors who are employees of Penn Virginia Resource GP, LLC or its affiliates receive no additional compensation for service on
the general partner’s board of directors or any committees of the board. The table below summarizes the 2011 compensation program for the non-employee directors of Penn Virginia Resource GP, LLC. 

2011 Non-Employee Director Compensation Summary 
  

							
	 Component
	  	Amount
($)	  	Medium of Payment (1)	  	Timing of Payment (2)
	 Annual Retainer
	  	90,000 per year	  	Deferred Common

Units
	  	$22,500 credited quarterly
				
		  	20,000 per year	  	Cash	  	$5,000 paid quarterly
				
	 Audit Committee Chair Annual Retainer
	  	15,000 per year	  	Cash	  	$3,750 paid quarterly
				
	 Audit Committee Member Annual Retainer
	  	10,000 per year	  	Cash	  	$2,500 paid quarterly
				
	 Compensation and Benefits and Conflicts Chair Annual Retainer
	  	2,500 per year	  	Cash	  	$625 paid quarterly
				
	 Board Meeting Fee
	  	1,000 per meeting	  	Cash	  	Paid quarterly
				
	 Committee Meeting Fee
	  	1,000 per meeting	  	Cash	  	Paid quarterly

  

	(1)	Each non-employee director receives an annual retainer of $110,000, consisting of $20,000 in cash and $90,000 worth of deferred common units, which are credited to each
director’s Deferred Compensation Account. In addition, directors may elect to receive any cash payments in common units or deferred common units, and may elect to defer the receipt of cash or common units they receive under the Penn Virginia
Resource GP, LLC Amended and Restated Non-Employee Directors Deferred Compensation Plan. 


	(2)	The fair market value of each quarterly crediting of deferred common units is based upon the NYSE closing price of our common units on the dates that such awards are
granted.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                         Consent of Independent Auditors



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the previously filed
Registration Statements (Forms S-3 Nos. 333-21361, 333-49639, and 333-58849 and
Form S-8 No. 333-60629) of Dexterity Surgical, Inc. of our report dated
March 28, 2000, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of
Dexterity Surgical, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for the
year ended December 31, 1999.



                                                    /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

San Antonio, Texas
April 7, 2000
Exhibit 11

                           CLOSURE MEDICAL CORPORATION
              COMPUTATION OF PRO FORMA NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE
                                   (Unaudited)
                      (In thousands, except per share data)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S> <C>

                                                                       Three Months Ended
                                                                  March 31,          March 31,
                                                                     1998              1997
                                                                     ----              ----
Weighted average common shares
   outstanding for the period                                          13,252             12,210
                                                                 -------------     --------------

Shares used in computing net income (loss) per share                   13,252             12,210
                                                                 =============     ==============

Net income (loss)                                              $       (1,956)   $        (1,496)
                                                                 =============     ==============

Net income (loss) per share                                    $        (0.15)   $         (0.12)
                                                                 =============     ==============

</TABLE>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 6956

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. RONNIE BOWMAN, a/k/a Young , Defendant

- Appellant

.

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

. Cameron McGowan Currie , Senior District Judge. ( 3:01

- cr - 00349

- CMC

- 1 )

Submitted : February 16, 2023 Decided: February 22, 2023

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING , Circuit Judge , and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Ronnie Bowman, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Neale Garner, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina.

Unpublished opinion s are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6956 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/22/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Ronnie Bowman appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115

- 391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. We review a district court’s order granting or denying a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion.
See United States v. Kibble , 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.) (providing standard), cert. denied , 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court
did not abuse its discretion in denying relief after analyzing the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. High , 997 F.3d 181, 189 (4th Cir. 2021). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v.
Bowman , No. 3 : 01

- cr - 00 349

- C MC

- 1 (D.S.C. Aug. 8, 2022). 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 USCA4 Appeal: 22-6956 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/22/2023 Pg: 2 of 2