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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7636

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOSE JORGE ABBUD GORDINHO,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at 

Beckley. Irene C. Berger, District Judge. (5:15-cr-00237-1; 5:19-cv-00312)

Submitted: April 27, 2021 Decided: April 30, 2021

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jose Jorge Abbud Gordinho, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jose Jorge Abbud Gordinho seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely Gordinho’s 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 motion. See Whiteside v. United States, 775 F.3d 180, 182-83 (4th Cir. 2014) (en 

banc) (explaining that § 2255 motions are subject to one-year statute of limitations, running 

from latest of four commencement dates enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)). The order is 

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

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, 

as here, the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both 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 independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gordinho 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       1,544,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               15,902,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   669,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            17,823,000
<PP&E>                                      25,808,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,722,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             104,399,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       23,320,000
<BONDS>                                     75,402,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        91,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,786,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               104,399,000
<SALES>                                     19,224,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            19,224,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,593,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,200,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,472,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,041,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (150,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,191,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,191,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.13)



</TABLE>
#### Ronald D. SEVER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CEO OF PRISONER TRANSPORT AMERICA; John Doe, #1; John Doe, #2; john doe, #3; John Doe, #4, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-7740.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 31, 2011.

Decided: April 6, 2011.

Ronald D. Sever, Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ronald D. Sever appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C § 1983 (2006) action for failure to state a *303claim after a 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b) (2006) review, and has moved for appointment of counsel. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Sever’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm the district court’s order. *Sever v. CEO of Prisoner Transp. Am.,*No. 7:10-cv-00406-gec-mfu, 2010 WL 4824682 (W.D.Va. Nov. 22, 2010). 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.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                   1,000
       
<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                 Jan-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                   Sep-30-1997
<CASH>                                 873
<SECURITIES>                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                           26
<ALLOWANCES>                             0
<INVENTORY>                            205
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      1167
<PP&E>                               16052
<DEPRECIATION>                         751
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       18984
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 4594
<BONDS>                                  0
<COMMON>                              9412
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<OTHER-SE>                             (88)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         18984
<SALES>                               1610
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      1618
<CGS>                                 2153
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         2153
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     611
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      (1132)
<INCOME-TAX>                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  (1132)
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                         (1132)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         (.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (.28)
                            

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


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,102,706
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,119,423
<PP&E>                                         487,174
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,610,239
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           56,332
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,155
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,544,752
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,610,239
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,739
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  191,250
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (165,511)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (165,511)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (165,511)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.018)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.018)
        




</TABLE>
#### Carlo Tanzi, Jr., et al., Respondents, v Carlo Tanzi, Sr., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[666 NYS2d 497]

—In an ac*501tion, *inter alia,*to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract, the defendant Carlo Tanzi, Sr., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), entered November 14, 1996, as granted the plaintiffs’ cross motion for leave to serve an amended complaint. In their brief on appeal, the plaintiffs make an application to strike pages 10 through 274 of the record on appeal.

Ordered that the application is granted (see, CPLR 5526), and pages 10 through 274 of the record are deemed stricken and have not been considered; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.

Leave to amend a complaint should be freely granted, unless the proposed amendment prejudices or surprises the opposing party, is palpably insufficient as a matter of law, or is totally devoid of merit (see, *Del Bourgo v 138 Sidelines Corp.,*208 AD2d 795). The amended complaint, which is based primarily upon the same transactions and occurrences as the original complaint, did not result in prejudice or surprise, and it cannot be said that the amendment is palpably insufficient as a matter of law or totally devoid of merit. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and Lerner, JJ., concur.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2821 

To direct the Secretary of the Army to assist entities adversely affected 

by a Corps of Engineers rehabilitation project relating to the Wolf 

Creek Dam, Kentucky, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 11, 2009 

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky (for himself and Mr. WHITFIELD) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of the Army to assist entities adversely affected by a Corps of Engineers rehabilitation 

project relating to the Wolf Creek Dam, Kentucky, and 

for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. WOLF CREEK DAM, KENTUCKY. 

4 (a) MODIFICATION OF LEASE AGREEMENTS.—The 

5 Secretary of the Army shall modify the terms of lease 

6 agreements entered into by the Secretary with owners and 

7 operators of marinas at Lake Cumberland, Kentucky, who 

8 have been adversely affected by low lake levels resulting 


tjames on PRODPC75 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2821 IH

1 from a rehabilitation project of the Corps of Engineers 

2 at Wolf Creek Dam, Kentucky. The modifications shall 

3 suspend lease payments that would otherwise be required 

4 under the agreements until such date as the Secretary de5 termines that the ordinary high water mark at Lake Cum6 berland has been restored. 

7 (b) REIMBURSEMENT OF COUNTIES.—The Secretary 

8 shall reimburse counties in the State of Kentucky for in9 come lost as a result of the suspension of lease payments 

10 under subsection (a). 

11 (c) REIMBURSEMENT OF MARINAS.—The Secretary 

12 shall reimburse marinas referred to in subsection (a) for 

13 expenses determined by the Secretary to be the result of 

14 the rehabilitation project referred to in subsection (a), in15 cluding for losses in revenue, structural modifications to 

16 facilities, the cost of relocating (including infrastructure 

17 costs), and interest payments relating to loans undertaken 

18 as a result of such project. 

Æ 


tjames on PRODPC75 with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Keith Brown, Also Known as Kibwe Watson, Appellant.

[859 NYS2d 890]

Judgments, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alfred J. Lorenzo, J., at plea; Denis J. Boyle, J., at sentence), rendered on or about December 1, 2006, unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Order filed. Concur—Lippman, EJ., Williams, Moskowitz and Acosta, JJ.
Exhibit 32 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 of Sanguine Corporation. (the Registrant) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, Thomas C. Drees, CEO and President and David E. Nelson, CFO of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (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 Registrant.  Date:3/31/2008By:/s/Thomas C. DreesThomas C. Drees, Ph.DCEO, President and Chairman of the Board of DirectorDate:3/31/2008By:/s/David E. NelsonDavid E. NelsonCFO and Director
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOUND ON
PAGES 1 AND 2 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999,
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         378,183
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,037,150
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (556,181)
<INVENTORY>                                  6,790,939
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,475,381
<PP&E>                                       3,774,725
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,542,195)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              28,356,141
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,536,619
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  9,700,000
<COMMON>                                    26,529,282
<OTHER-SE>                                (39,478,467)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                28,356,141
<SALES>                                     19,411,495
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            19,742,763
<CGS>                                        8,045,801
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,946,973
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,424,266
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,325,723
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,325,723
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,325,723
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .16<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10
<FN>
<F1>For purposes of thsi Exhibit, Primary means Basic.
</FN>


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Robert P. Capps, certify that:1*.*I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Mitcham Industries, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparationof financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles;(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting./s/ Robert P. Capps
#### Michael Liebgold, Appellant, v Hofstra University et al., Respondents.

[664 NYS2d 831]

—In an action to recover damages for libel, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roberto, J.), entered October 9, 1996, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs payable to the respondent The Chronicle.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the plaintiff’s libel action. The complaint and the challenged newspaper articles appended thereto unequivocally demonstrate that the articles contain substantially truthful factual assertions and that, when read as a whole and in the appropriate context, the articles are not reasonably susceptible of a defamatory connotation *(see generally, Armstrong v Simon & Schuster, 85*NY2d 373; *Weiner v Doubleday & Co.,*74 NY2d 586, *cert denied*495 US 930; *Aronson v Wiersma, 65*NY2d 592; *James v Gannett Co.,*40 NY2d 415). Moreover, the article reporting on the judicial proceedings involving the plaintiff is protected under the provisions of Civil Rights Law § 74 *(see, Holy Spirit Assn. for Unification of World Christianity v New York Times Co.,*49 NY2d 63; *Glendora v Gannett Suburban Newspapers,*201 AD2d 620; *Becher v Troy Publ. Co.,*183 AD2d 230).

The plaintiff similarly has failed to state a cause of action for libel with respect to the newspaper editorial which he challenges inasmuch as the statements therein do not accuse him of rape. Furthermore, consideration of the editorial in its entirety and under the surrounding circumstances demonstrates that it consists of nonactionable expressions of opinion *(see, Millus v Newsday, Inc.,*89 NY2d 840, *cert denied*520 US 1144; *Brian v Richardson,*87 NY2d 46; *Rappaport v VV Publ. Corp.,*223 AD2d 515).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are either without merit or have been rendered academic by reason of the forego*273ing analysis. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Sullivan and Santucci, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEFFINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofSRS Labs, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), Ulrich Gottschling, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge:

 

1.                                       TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe 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.

 
| Date: November 4, 2008 |   |                     |
|-----------------------------|--------|--------------------------|
|                        |   | By:                      | /s/  Ulrich Gottschling |
|                        |   | Ulrich  Gottschling      |
|                        |   | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----