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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6149

CHARLES GOODE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RONALD ANGELONE; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, Intake and Legal Services,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior

District Judge. (CA-03-891-2)

Submitted: March 11, 2004 Decided: March 19, 2004

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Goode, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Charles Goode appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his petition for writ of mandamus for failure to state

a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (2000). We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we dismiss the

appeal as frivolous for the reasons stated by the district court.

See Goode v. Angelone, No. CA-03-891-2 (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 5,

2004; entered Jan. 6, 2004). 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.

DISMISSED
Dismissed and Opinion Filed January 15, 2020

In The 

## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 00728

- CV

KATHERINE MITCHELL , Appellant

V.

DALLAS HOUSING AUTHO RITY

, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 19

- 03179

- E



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Whitehill, and Justice Molberg

Opinion by Chief Justice Burns

Appellant’s brief in this ca se is overdue. By postcard dated November 15, 2019, we

notified appellant the time for filing appellant’s brief had expired. We directed appellant to file a

brief and an extension motion within ten days. We cautioned appellant that failure to file a bri ef

and an extension motion would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. To

date, appellant has not filed a brief, filed an extension motion, or otherwise corresponded with the

Court regarding the status of this appeal.– 2

–

A ccordingly , we dismiss this appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a) (1); 42.3(b)

, (c).

19072 8f.p05 /Robert D. Burns, III//

ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE– 3

– 

## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

KATHERINE MITCHELL, Appellant

No. 05

- 19

- 00728

- CV V.

DALLAS HOUSING AUTHORITY,

Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law

No. 5, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 19

- 03179

- E.

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burns.

Justices Whitehill and Molberg

participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED

.

Judgment entered this 15 th day of January, 2020.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS  CONTAINED IN THE JUNE 30, 1998 QUARTERLY REPORT FILED ON FORM 10-QSB
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-30-1998
<CASH>                                      1,771,966
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 343,670
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            2,127,969
<PP&E>                                         33,540
<DEPRECIATION>                                  9,558
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              2,828,364
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          63,361
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                        9,567
<OTHER-SE>                                  2,755,436
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                2,828,364
<SALES>                                       332,750
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              332,750
<CGS>                                         187,095
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 836,789
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (442,280)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                (442,280)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.05)
        


</TABLE>
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 Quarterly Report of Altair Nanotechnologies Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John Fallini, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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 results of operations of the Company.










/s/  John FalliniJohn Fallini, Chief Financial Officer
August 7, 2009
#### CAPT. CHANCE, INC., Leonard Shrimp Producers, Inc., St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Zurich American Insurance Co., Great American Insurance Company of New York, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 07-13702.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

April 30, 2008.

Carl R. Nelson, Eric Christopher Thiel, Fowler, White, Boggs, Banker P.A., Tampa, FL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Bruce Allan Ross, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before BIRCH and DUBINA, Circuit Judges, and GOLDBERG,* Judge.

*

 Honorable Richard W. Goldberg, United States Court of International Trade Judge, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

Having carefully reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record and having heard oral argument in this case, we hereby affirm the thorough and well-reasoned opinion of the district court.

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1290

WILLARD R. MEADOWS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SCARLETT RATCLIFFE, Clerk of Court of Giles County; RANDY CARGILL, Attorney; DAVID MULLINS, Attorney; CLIFFORD JOHNSON; WILLIAM SMITH; LEONARD STEVE SONGER; BARBARA LEE MCGUIRE; ALBERT MCGUIRE; RANDALL DUNCAN, Esquire, The Commonwealth Attorney; WILLIS WOODS, The Honorable Retired Judge (Deceased), Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-624-R) Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 4, 2001Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Willard R. Meadows, Appellant Pro Se. Robert F. Rider, RIDER, THOMAS, CLEAVELAND, FERRIS & EAKIN, Roanoke, Virginia; Randy VirlinCargill, MAGEE, FOSTER, GOLDSTEIN & SAYERS, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia; David Mullins, Blacksburg, Virginia; Max Jenkins, JENKINS & QUIGLEY, Radford, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Willard Russell Meadows appeals from the district court’sorders denying his two Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions seeking reconsideration of the court’s prior orders dismissing his complaint filed under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and find no abuse of discretion. See In re Burnley , 988 F.2d 1, 3 (4th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Meadows v. Ratcliffe , No. CA-99-624-R (W.D. Va. Jan. 30 & Feb. 12, 2001). We deny the motion for 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
Exhibit 10.17(b)


 


Land Compensation/Lease Agreement


 


	Party A: 	Pingdingshan Xinhua District Jiaodian Town West Wuzhuang Village Committee
	 	 
	Party B:	Henan Jianyida Industry Co., Ltd.




  


The 56 mu (approximately 9.2 acres) land facing
Jiaodian Town West Wuzhuang Village, located west of a hill slope, east of Pingjia Road, north of agricultural land, and south
of a hill slope, and previously owned by the village news media office, is now in use by Party B. In January 2009 Party B already
paid RMB 11,200,000 to Party A as requisition payment for the land. Party A agreed to transfer the land use right to Party B, and
Party B is in the process of registering the transfer. Until the date that Party B completes the registration, Party B’s
requisition payment to Party A shall be deemed lease payment for the land for 50 years commencing January 2009. When Party B completes
the registration, the portion of the lease payment for the then remaining lease term shall be deemed requisition payment.


 


The terms under this agreement are negotiated and agreed upon by
Party A and Party B.


 





	Party A: Pingdingshan Xinhua District 	 	Party B: Henan Jianyida Industry Co., Ltd.
	Jiaodian Town West Wuzhuang
Village Committee	 	 (Stamp)
	(Stamp and Signature)	 	
	 	 	 
	February 12, 2014
#### Kevin O’CONNELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Kelly HARRINGTON, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 08-16500.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Feb. 16, 2011.

Filed March 10, 2011.

Kevin O’Connell, Delano, CA, pro se.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN and TROTT, Circuit Judges, and CAMPBELL,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Tena Campbell, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Utah, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Kevin O’Connell appeals from the district court’s denial of his Section 2254 habeas corpus petition, in which he challenged his sentence under the California three strikes law. Mr. O’Connell argues that his due process rights were violated because he was shackled during the guilt and sentencing phases of the bifurcated trial proceedings. Mr. O’Connell also asks the Court to expand the Certificate of Appealability to address a *Miranda*issue.

Mr. O’Connell’s request that the Court issue a certificate of appealability on the *Miranda*issue is denied. Mr. O’Connell did not make a substantial showing that the events related to the recorded custodial interrogation resulted in the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000).

His appeal of the two certified issues fails on the merits. The sufficiently developed state court record does not contain any evidence that the jury saw or knew of Mr. O’Connell’s shackles during the guilt phase. Indeed, Mr. O’Connell’s trial counsel admitted that a jury instruction regarding physical restraints was not necessary because the shackles were not visible to the jury. No constitutional error occurred during the guilt phase. *Ghent v. Woodford,*279 F.3d 1121, 1132 (9th Cir.2002). But even if a constitutional error occurred, the overwhelming evidence of Mr. O’Connell’s guilt rendered any such error harmless. *Cox v. Ayers,*613 F.3d 883, 891 (9th Cir.2010).

During the sentencing phase, although the jury clearly saw Mr. O’Connell’s shackles, any constitutional error was *747harmless because Mr. O’Connell revealed his shackles only after the presentation of overwhelming evidence (including Mr. O’Connell’s testimony) that he had three convictions qualifying him for sentencing under California’s three strikes law. *Id.*

In sum, Mr. O’Connell failed to show that the “state court’s ruling on the claim being presented in federal court was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.” *Harrington v. Richter,*— U.S. -, -, 131 S.Ct. 770, 786-87, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Ronald Jerome JONES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Bryan WATSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 11-6178.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 31, 2011.

Decided: April 6, 2011.

Ronald Jerome Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ronald Jerome Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jones 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I,  Michael  R.  Long,  certify  that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Payment Data Systems,
Inc.  (the  "Company");

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material  fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made,  in  light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading  with  respect  to  the  period  covered  by  this  report;

3.  Based  on  my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial  condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of,
and  for,  the  periods  presented  in  this  report;

4.  The  Company's  other  certifying  officer(s)  and  I  are  responsible  for
establishing  and  maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange  Act  Rules  13a-15(e)  and  15d-15(e))  for  the  Company  and  have:

(a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls  and  procedures  to  be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material  information  relating  to  the  Company,  including  its  consolidated
subsidiaries,  is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during  the  period  in  which  this  report  is  being  prepared;

(b)  Evaluated  the  effectiveness  of  the  Company's  disclosure  controls and
procedures  and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of  the  disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by  this  report  based  on  such  evaluation;  and

(c)  Disclosed  in this report any change in the Company's internal control over
financial  reporting  that  occurred  during  the  Company's  most recent fiscal
quarter  that  has  materially  affected,  or is reasonably likely to materially
affect,  the  Company's  internal  control  over  financial  reporting;  and

5.  The Company's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our
most  recent  evaluation  of  internal  control over financial reporting, to the
Company's  auditors  and the audit committee of the Company's board of directors
(or  persons  performing  the  equivalent  functions):

(a)  All  significant  deficiencies  and  material  weaknesses  in the design or
operation  of  internal  control  over  financial reporting which are reasonably
likely  to  adversely affect the Company's ability to record, process, summarize
and  report  financial  information;  and

(b)  Any  fraud,  whether  or  not  material,  that involves management or other
employees  who  have  a  significant role in the Company's internal control over
financial  reporting.

Dated:  May  16,  2005

     /s/Michael  R.  Long
     --------------------
     Michael  R.  Long
     Chief  Executive  Officer
     and  Chief  Financial  Officer
111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2999 

AN ACT 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to enhance and 

increase the number of veterinarians trained in veterinary public health. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2999 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Veterinary Public 

3 Health Amendments Act of 2010’’. 

4 SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF VETERINARY PUBLIC HEALTH IN 

5 CERTAIN PUBLIC HEALTH WORKFORCE PRO6 VISIONS. 

7 (a) PUBLIC HEALTH WORKFORCE GRANTS.—Sub8 sections (b)(1)(A) and (d)(6) of section 765 of the Public 

9 Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 295) are amended by in10 serting ‘‘veterinary public health,’’ after ‘‘preventive medi11 cine,’’ each place it appears. 

12 (b) PUBLIC HEALTH WORKFORCE LOAN REPAY13 MENT PROGRAM.— 

14 (1) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraphs (A) and (B) 

15 of section 776(b)(1) of the Public Health Service 

16 Act (42 U.S.C. 295f–1(b)(1)) are amended by strik17 ing ‘‘public health or health professions degree or 

18 certificate’’ each place it appears and inserting 

19 ‘‘public health (including veterinary public health) or 

20 health professions degree or certificate’’. 

21 (2) TECHNICAL CORRECTION.—Subparagraph 

22 (A) of section 776(b)(1) of the Public Health Service 

23 Act (42 U.S.C. 295f–1(b)(1)) is amended by adding 

24 ‘‘or’’ at the end. 
3 

•HR 2999 EH

1 (c) DEFINITION.—Section 799B of the Public Health 

2 Service Act (42 U.S.C. 295p) is amended by adding at 

3 the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(27) VETERINARY PUBLIC HEALTH.—The 

5 term ‘veterinary public health’ includes veterinarians 

6 engaged in one or more of the following areas to the 

7 extent such areas have an impact on human health: 

8 biodefense and emergency preparedness, emerging 

9 and reemerging infectious diseases, environmental 

10 health, ecosystem health, pre- and post-harvest food 

11 protection, regulatory medicine, diagnostic labora12 tory medicine, veterinary pathology, biomedical re13 search, the practice of food animal medicine in rural 

14 areas, and government practice.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 30 

(legislative day September 29), 2010. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2999 

AN ACT 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to enhance 

in veterinary public health. and increase the number of veterinarians trained
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT

TO
    RULE 13a-14(a) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT

|IVikram
    Gulati certify that:
|--------------------------------
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                

---








| | 5. | The registrants
      other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
      evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent function):
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
| |    | a.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
| |    | b.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

|DATE: November 9, 2005 | By: /s/ | Vikram
    Gulati           | 
|---------------------- | ------- | --------------------------- | 
|                       |         |                             | 
|                       |         | Vikram
    Gulati           | 
|                       |         | Chief
    Executive Officer | 

---