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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1693

In re: WELLESLEY K. CLAYTON,

Appellant,

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

WELLESLEY K. CLAYTON,

Debtor – Appellant,

v.

LINDA W. SIMPSON, U. S. Bankruptcy Administrator,

Trustee – Appellee,

and

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC,

Party-in-Interest – Appellee,

and

M&T BANK,

Creditor – Appellee,

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, 

Jr., District Judge. (3:15-cv-00347-RJC)

Submitted: October 18, 2016 Decided: October 20, 2016
2

Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wellesley K. Clayton, Appellant Pro Se. Robert A. Cox, Jr. 

BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina; 

Lacey Meredith Moore, HUTCHENS LAW FIRM, Charlotte, North 

Carolina; Linda Wright Simpson, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY 

ADMINISTRATOR, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Wellesley K. Clayton seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order 

converting his case from a Chapter 11 to a Chapter 7 proceeding.

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the 

notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the 

district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. 

R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the 

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the 

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely 

filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional 

requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on 

November 23, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed on June 15, 

2016. Because Clayton failed to file a timely notice of appeal 

or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 

deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and we 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
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24
- 6068

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. MALIK AL

- SHABAZZ, a/k/a Beaver, a/k/a Beaver G , Defendant

- Appellant

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

. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. ( 3:19

- cr - 00986

- TLW

- 13 )

Submitted : June 13, 2024 Decided: June 18, 2024

Before RUSHING and HEYTENS , Circuit Judges , and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Malik Al

- Shabazz , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6068 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/18/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Malik Al

- Shabazz appeals the district court’s orders denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3583(c)(1)(A) motion for a sentence reduction and denying his motion s for appointment of counsel . We have reviewed the record and discern no reversible error

. See United States

v. Davis , 99 F.4th 647, 653, 659

- 60 (4th Cir. 2024) ( compassionate release ) ; United States v. Legree , 205 F.3d 724, 729

- 30 (4th Cir. 2000) (appointment of counsel)

. We therefore affirm the district court’s orders. United States v. Al

- Shabazz , No. 3:19

- c r - 00986

- JFA

- 13 (D.S.C. Apr. 12, 2023; July 12, 202 3 ; July 24, 2023; Aug. 24, 2023; Sept. 6, 2023; Nov. 8, 2023). We deny Al

- Shabazz’s motion for appointment of counsel on 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. AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 24-6068 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/18/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

JOHN DOUGLAS BITTING, IV,

 Petitioner

 v.

LISA MARIE BITTING AND BRANDON

LEE BITTING,

 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 460 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 5th day of November, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.

Respondents
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 Form 10-K of Consolidated Water Co. Ltd. for the year ended
December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the “Report”), I, Frederick W. McTaggart, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:





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





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





Date:
      March 16, 2010
            By:
            /s/ Frederick W. McTaggartName:
            Frederick W. McTaggartTitle:
            Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jermaine Baker, Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 866]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s application to withdraw granted *(see, People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38). (Appeal from Judgment of Jefferson County Court, Clary, J.—Attempted Promotion Prison Contraband, 1st Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Wisner, Callahan and Fallon, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3252 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3252

    To authorize the President of the United States to agree to an 
amendment to the agreement between the Government of the United States 
 of America and the Government of the United Mexican States concerning 
the establishment of a Border Environment Cooperation Commission and a 
                    North American Development Bank.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 17, 2009

Mr. Hinojosa (for himself, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Ortiz, Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. 
 Grijalva, Mr. Cuellar, and Mr. Reyes) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To authorize the President of the United States to agree to an 
amendment to the agreement between the Government of the United States 
 of America and the Government of the United Mexican States concerning 
the establishment of a Border Environment Cooperation Commission and a 
                    North American Development Bank.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO AGREE TO AN AMENDMENT TO THE BORDER ENVIRONMENT 
              COOPERATION AGREEMENT.

    Section 545 of the North American Free Trade Agreement 
Implementation Act (22 U.S.C. 290m-4) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``; and'' and inserting a 
        semicolon;
            (2) in paragraph (2) by striking the period and inserting 
        ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(3) expand the purposes and functions of the Border 
        Environment Cooperation Commission and the North American 
        Development Bank to allow the Commission to certify, and the 
        Bank to finance, any infrastructure in the border region.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
UNAUDITED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  FOR THE NINE MONTH PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2000
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001088211
<NAME>                        NEWSGURUS.COM, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                             124,410
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          200
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   124,610
<PP&E>                                               2,763
<DEPRECIATION>                                         234
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     184,557
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               37,432
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             9,290
<OTHER-SE>                                         137,835
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       184,557
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    57,814
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (57,814)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (57,814)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.01)


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3205 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3205

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to deny any deduction for 
                     advertising health insurance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 14, 2009

 Mr. Lipinski introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to deny any deduction for 
                     advertising health insurance.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Health Insurance Company Advertising 
Deduction Denial Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. DENIAL OF DEDUCTION FOR ADVERTISING HEALTH INSURANCE.

    (a) In General.--Part IX of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to items not deductible) is 
amended by adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 280I. DENIAL OF DEDUCTION FOR ADVERTISING HEALTH INSURANCE.

    ``(a) In General.--No deduction shall be allowed under this chapter 
with respect to--
            ``(1) any advertisement primarily for purposes of promoting 
        the sale of any insurance which constitutes medical care, and
            ``(2) any of the following incurred or provided primarily 
        for purposes described in paragraph (1):
                    ``(A) Travel expenses (including meals and 
                lodging).
                    ``(B) Goods or services of a type generally 
                considered to constitute entertainment, amusement, or 
                recreation or the use of a facility in connection with 
                providing such goods and services.
                    ``(C) Gifts.
                    ``(D) Other promotion expenses.
    ``(b) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such regulations 
as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this section.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for such part IX is 
amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``Sec. 280I. Denial of deduction for advertising health insurance.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to amounts paid or incurred after the date of the enactment of 
this Act in taxable years ending after such date.
                                 <all>
```
[No. 41876-2-II.

Division Two.

October 24, 2012.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. John Michael Troit, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Thurston County, No. 10-1-01724-4, Wm. Thomas McPhee, J., entered March 3,2011 *.Affirmed in part*and *remanded with instructions*by unpublished opinion per

Penoyar, J.,

concurred in by Johanson, A.C.J., and Quinn-Brintnall, J.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3301 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3301

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the alternative 
  tax liability limitation for small property and casualty insurance 
                               companies.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 22, 2009

  Mr. Pomeroy (for himself and Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the alternative 
  tax liability limitation for small property and casualty insurance 
                               companies.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASE IN LIMITATION FOR ALTERNATIVE TAX LIABILITY FOR 
              SMALL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANIES.

    (a) In General.--Clause (i) of section 831(b)(2)(A) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
                            ``(i) the net written premiums (or, if 
                        greater, direct written premiums) for the 
                        taxable year do not exceed $2,025,000, and''.
    (b) Inflation Adjustment.--Paragraph (2) of section 831(b) of such 
Code is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(C) Inflation adjustment.--In the case of any 
                taxable year beginning in a calendar year after 2010, 
                the dollar amount set forth in subparagraph (A) shall 
                be increased by an amount equal to--
                            ``(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by
                            ``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment 
                        determined under section 1(f)(3) for such 
                        calendar year by substituting `calendar year 
                        2009' for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph 
                        (B) thereof. If the amount as adjusted under 
                        the preceding sentence is not a multiple of 
                        $1,000, such amount shall be rounded to the 
                        next lowest multiple of $1,000.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.2











CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT


TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





This certification is not to be deemed filed pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and does not constitute a part of the Quarterly Report of Quick-Med Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report").





In connection with the  Report, I, Nam H. Nguyen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





(b)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the date and for the periods indicated.











Dated:  February 14, 2011                                                                                     /s/ Nam H. Nguyen


Nam H. Nguyen
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 17

- 00836

- CR Larry Wayne THOMAS , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2017CR12149W Honorable Frank J. Castro, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: February 28, 2018
DIS MISSED The trial court’ s certification in this appeal states that “this criminal case is a plea

- bargain case, and the d efendant has NO right of appeal.” The clerk’ s record contains a written plea bargain, and the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defend ant; therefore, the trial court’ s certification accura tely reflects that the underlying case is a plea

- bargain case. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(a)(2). Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides, “The appeal must be dismissed if a certification that shows the defendant has a right of appeal has not been made part04

- 17

- 00836

- CR

- 2

- of the record under these rules.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 25.2(d). On January 23 , 2 018, we ordered that this appeal would be dismissed pursuant to rule 25.2(d) unless an amended trial court certification showing that the appellant has the right of appeal was made part of th e appellate record by February
22 , 2018. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25. 2(d); 37.1; see also Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Daniels v. State , 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, n o pet.). No response was filed. In the absence of an amended trial court certification showing that the appellant h as the right of appeal, rule 25.2(d) requires this court to dismiss t his appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
No. 07-16-00077-CV

Tom Miller

 Appellant

v.

F-40 Motorsports

 Appellee 

§

§

§

§

From the 69th District Court 

 of Moore County

May 20, 2016

Opinion Per Curiam

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated May 20, 2016, it is ordered, adjudged 

and decreed that this appeal is dismissed.

It is further ordered that all costs in this behalf be assessed against the parties 

incurring them.

It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that inasmuch as the appeal is 

dismissed at the appellant’s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and 

our mandate will issue forthwith.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o
#### Alexander Phillips, an Infant, by His Parents and Natural Guardians, Kathleen Phillips et al., Appellant, v Amusements of Rochester, Inc., Respondent.

[667 NYS2d 580]

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Plaintiffs’ son was injured on an amusement park ride owned and operated by defendant. The ride, called the Gravitron, rotates in a circular motion at high speed, and centrifugal force pushes riders back against their seats. Riders do not wear safety belts. Plaintiffs allege that the centrifugal force sucked their son into a cavity behind his seat, causing him to sustain cuts on his face. Supreme Court erred in granting defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, *Brancati v Bar-U-Farm,*183 AD2d 1027, 1030; *see generally, Rotaba Extruders v Ceppos,*46 NY2d 223, 231). Defendant met its initial burden, establishing as a matter of law that there was no defect in the ride that caused the injury and that it fulfilled its duty of reasonable care (see, *Luftig v Steinhorn,*21 AD2d 760, *affd*16 NY2d 568). It submitted evidence that no one else had been injured on the Gravitron, that its employees had found no missing or loose panels on the equipment on the day of the accident and that it made no repairs to the ride after the accident. However, plaintiffs raised an issue of fact whether there was a missing panel that caused their son to be sucked upward in the machine and injured. At his deposition, plaintiffs’ son testified that he noticed a “big black space where all the panels were”, with one missing at his location. Any inconsistency in the deposition testimony of plaintiffs’ son, a child under the age of 10 at the time of the deposition, concerning the issue of the missing panel, merely presents a credibility issue for the trier of fact *(see, Krampen v Foster,*242 AD2d 913; *see also, Muhammad v Hyman Constr.,*216 AD2d 206; *Hourigan v McGarry,*106 AD2d 845, 845-846). We modify the order, therefore, by denying defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment and reinstating the complaint. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Lunn, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present— Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Balio and Fallon, JJ.