alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Clarence HUELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SCDC Director Jon OZMINT; Warden McKither Bodison, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-7209.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 31, 2011.

Decided: April 5, 2011.

Clarence Huell, Appellant Pro Se. Drew Hamilton Butler, Jocelyn Newman, Mason Abram Summers, Richardson, Plowden & Robinson, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Clarence Huell appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing, in part, his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and granting, in part, summary judgment to Appellees. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Huell v. Ozmint,*No. 1:09-cv-01613-HFF, 2010 WL 3257710 (D.S.C. Aug. 16, 2010). We deny Appellees’ motion to strike Huell’s reply brief. 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.*
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-30475

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Michael Craig Singleton, Jr., 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:22-CR-264-1

______________________________

Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Michael Craig Singleton, Jr., pleaded guilty to possession with intent 

to distribute cocaine and was sentenced to 60 months in prison. On appeal, 

he argues that the district court erred in determining that he was not eligible 

to be sentenced pursuant to U.S.S.G § 5C1.2 because he possessed a firearm 

in connection with the offense. We review the district court’s findings of fact 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 19, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-30475 Document: 60-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/19/2024
pertaining to sentencing under § 5C1.2 for clear error and consider its legal 

interpretation of § 5C1.2 de novo. See United States v. Vasquez, 161 F.3d 909, 

910 (5th Cir. 1998). 

Singleton concedes that he possessed a firearm in the center console 

of the vehicle that he was driving and of which he was the only occupant but 

argues that this possession was not related to the cocaine that was in a spare 

tire on the undercarriage of the vehicle. He asserts that the firearm was left 

accidentally in the vehicle by his brother, he placed the firearm in the center 

console for his brother to retrieve, and the firearm played no role in his drug 

trafficking activities.

The record supports that there was the necessary temporal and spatial 

relationship between the firearm, the offense, and Singleton. See id. at 912; 

United States v. Guidry, 960 F.3d 676, 683 & n.7 (5th Cir. 2020). Further, 

Singleton did not show that it is clearly improbable that the firearm, which 

was loaded and readily accessible to him in a car transporting cocaine, was 

connected to the drug offense. See Guidry, 960 F.3d at 683; Vasquez, 161 F.3d 

at 912.

Thus, the district court did not clearly err in refusing to apply § 5C1.2. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Case: 23-30475 Document: 60-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/19/2024
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         803,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1087000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    15,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1989000
<PP&E>                                         2917000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2487000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2494000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          697,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        17,000
<OTHER-SE>                                    1,691000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,494,000
<SALES>                                      7,251,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,251,000
<CGS>                                         4828,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,489,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                26,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                15,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              48,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                736,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    26,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            710,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   710,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .43
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 April 24, 2020

Order 

Clerk

April 24, 2020

161238-9(135)

GREAT LAKES CAPITAL FUND FOR

HOUSING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP XII, Plaintiff-Appellee,

SC: 161238, 161239

v COA: 349763; 349931

Saginaw CC: 18-035570-CB

ERWIN COMPANIES, LLC, 

Defendant-Appellee, and 

STACY ERWIN OAKES, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_______________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant-appellant to waive the filing 

fees is GRANTED as to this case only.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Ray, Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 446]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hanophy, J.), rendered March 1, 1996, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently *394waived his right to appeal from the judgment of conviction after a jury trial in exchange for a lesser sentence. The defendant was made aware of his appealable issues and was not coerced into entering the sentencing agreement. Moreover, the defendant received the benefit of his bargain. Accordingly, he cannot now challenge the alleged trial errors *(see, People v Holman,*89 NY2d 876; *People v Seaberg,*74 NY2d 1; *People v Bentley,*227 AD2d 411). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson and Joy, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2  Certification by the Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  In connection with the Quarterly Report of Entheos Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on the Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Harmel Rayat, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (i) the Report filed by the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (ii) The information contained in that Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company on the dates and for the periods presented therein.  ENTHEOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.Date: November 12, 2007By:/s/ Harmel RayatHarmel Rayat
Chief Financial Officer  This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not 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, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version 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.
#### Richard Parker et al., Appellants, v Jo E. Flores, Defendant, and Norstar Bank of Upstate New York, Respondent.

[609 NYS2d 93]

—In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for the wrongful acceptance by the defendant Nor-star Bank of Upstate New York of stolen and forged checks, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), dated February 6, 1992, which granted the motion by the defendant Norstar Bank of Upstate New York for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against it, and denied the plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is modified, by deleting the provision thereof which granted the motion by the defendant Norstar Bank of Upstate New York for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against it, and substituting therefor a provision denying the motion; as so modified, *562the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

In 1988 the plaintiff Richard Parker, the sole owner of the plaintiff Richard Parker Electric Contractors, Inc. (hereinafter Parker Electric), hired a secretary-bookkeeper. During her employment between April 1988 and December 1988 she allegedly stole 29 checks from Parker Electric by either forging the endorsement of the payee’s name, forging Parker’s signature on a Parker Electric check, or simply writing "For Deposit Only” and her account number on the check. She deposited these checks in her account at Norstar Bank of Upstate New York, where Parker Electric did not maintain an account.

The common law rule in New York remains unchanged by the enactment of the Uniform Commercial Code, which provides that except for specific limited circumstances, a drawer does not have a cause of action against a collecting bank for collecting an improperly endorsed check *(see, Horovitz v Roadworks of Great Neck,*76 NY2d 975; *Prudential-Bache Sec. v Citibank, 73*NY2d 263; *Spielman v Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co.,*60 NY2d 221). The Court of Appeals created an exception to this rule in *Underpinning & Found. Constructors v Chase Manhattan Bank*(46 NY2d 459, 464-465), holding that the drawer may recover from the depositary in those "comparatively rare instances” when "the depositary [bank] has acted wrongfully and yet the drawee has acted properly” in honoring the check because the forgery is "effective.”

We find that the plaintiffs have produced sufficient evidence in admissible form to establish the existence of a material issue of fact *i.e.,*evidence of the possibility that the inadequacy of some endorsements should have placed the bank on notice of an irregularity. Therefore, the Supreme Court erred by granting the defendant Norstar Bank of Upstate New York summary judgment. Thompson, J. P., Santucci, Friedman and Florio, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000927388
<NAME> BGLS INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           4,754
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,462
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     39,312
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                67,985
<PP&E>                                          45,943
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 202,323
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          139,704
<BONDS>                                        400,635
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,850
<OTHER-SE>                                    (490,247)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   126,460
<SALES>                                        389,615
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               389,615
<CGS>                                          202,121
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  202,121
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                27,035
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              61,778
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (50,687)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,123
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (51,810)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   1,925
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (49,885)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (2.74)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (2.74)
        

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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
UNAUDITED   CONDENSED   CONSOLIDATED   FINANCIAL   STATEMENTS  INCLUDED  IN  THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-QSB FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-QSB.


</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001016439
<NAME>                        Intelligroup, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         5,330
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  13,443
<ALLOWANCES>                                   523
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               19,210
<PP&E>                                         2,571
<DEPRECIATION>                                 299
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 21,856
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3,804
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       107
<OTHER-SE>                                     17,892
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   21,856
<SALES>                                        15,738
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               15,738
<CGS>                                          11,336
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  11,336
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               3,086
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (79)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,395
<INCOME-TAX>                                   558
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            837
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   837
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.08 <F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.08 <F2>
<FN>
<F1>      This amount represents Basic Earnings per Share in accordance with the
          requirements of Statement of Financial  Accounting Standards No. 128 -
          "Earnings per Share".

<F2>      This amount  represents  Diluted Earnings per Share in accordance with
          the  requirements of Statement of Financial  Accounting  Standards No.
          128 - "Earnings per Share".
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350 AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Intelligroup,
    Inc, (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
    on the date hereof (the Report), I, Madhu Poomalil, Chief Financial
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 and to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:


|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
    the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (16 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d); 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:November 9,
	2005 | By: /s/ | Madhu Poomalil         
|---------------------- | ------- | -----------------------
|                       |         |                        
|                       |         | Madhu Poomalil         
|                       |         | Chief Financial Officer

---
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-10534

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

BILLY JOE SMITH,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:11-CR-102-1

Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

TheFederalPublic Defender appointed to represent Billy Joe Smith in this

direct criminal appeal has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief 

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See United States v.

Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Smith has not filed a response. We have

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. 

We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 22, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 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.

Case: 11-10534 Document: 00511764543 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/22/2012
No. 11-10534

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

Case: 11-10534 Document: 00511764543 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/22/2012
# ***Exhibit 32***

# * *

# ***CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906***

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

 

Pursuantto 18 U.S.C.  1350, we the undersigned Chief ExecutiveOfficer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of Canterbury Park HoldingCorporation (the “Company”), hereby certify that:

 

(1)                                                          TheAnnual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31,2004, (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
|                       |   | Canterbury Park Holding  Corporation         |
|----------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|                       |   |
| Date:  March 29, 2005 |   | /s/ Randall D. Sampson                       |   |
|                       |   | Randall D. Sampson,                          |
|                       |   | President, and Chief  Executive Officer      |
|                       |   |                                         |
| Date:  March 29, 2005 |   | /s/ David C. Hansen                          |   |
|                       |   | David C. Hansen,                             |
|                       |   | Vice President, and  Chief Financial Officer |
|                            |        |                                              |  |  |

 

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Aaron M. Willey, Appellant.

[987 NYS2d 265]

Garry, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Otsego County (Lambert, J.), rendered April 2, 2012, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted assault in the second degree (two counts).

In 2011, defendant was charged in an indictment with assault in the second degree after allegedly causing physical injury to another inmate while confined in the Otsego County Correctional Facility. In 2012, he was charged in a superior court information with additional counts of assault in the second degree and attempted assault in the second degree, arising from a separate altercation with a correction officer. Defendant waived indictment on the superior court information and, in full satisfaction all charges, pleaded guilty to two counts of attempted assault in the second degree, also waiving his right to appeal. In accord with the plea agreement, and as a second felony offender, he was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of IV2 to 3 years.

Defendant appeals, arguing solely that County Court erred in denying his pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he was deprived of a speedy trial under CPL 30.30, without conducting a hearing. Upon this record, however, and absent a challenge to the voluntariness of his guilty plea or his waiver of the right to appeal, defendant’s statutory claim is precluded *(see People v O’Brien,*56 NY2d 1009, 1010 [1982]; *People v Devino,*110 AD3d 1146, 1147 [2013]; *People v Spence,*101 AD3d 1477, 1478 [2012]).* Accordingly, the judgment must be affirmed.

Peters, PJ., Stein, Egan Jr. and Clark, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

*

 To the extent that defendant had previously asserted a constitutional claim, this would survive his guilty plea and appeal waiver; nonetheless, any such claim is deemed abandoned by his failure to raise it in his brief upon appeal *(see People v Alexander,*19 NY3d 203, 215 n 8 [2012]; *People v Irvis,*90 AD3d 1302, 1303 [2011], *lv denied*19 NY3d 962 [2012]; *People v McCorkle,*67 AD3d 1249, 1250 and n [2009]).