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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6437

DEREK CURTIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

KENNETH T. CUCCINELLI, II, Attorney General; PAUL EBERT, 

Esquire, Commonwealth Attorney; JEANICE WEITHOP, Esq. Asst. 

Commonwealth Attorney; ANGELA HORAN, County Attorney; 

COLONEL MELETUS, Superintendent; CHERYL ANN WALTON, CAC; 

CAPTAIN GEORGE HURLOCK, Director of Security; CHARLIE DEAN, 

Chief of Police; HEATHER DARLING, Detective; SERGEANT 

BREWER, Deputy Sheriff; OFFICER PEACEMAKER, Deputy Sheriff; 

CAROLYN OLIVER, Social Worker II; SERGEANT LAUREL WHITAKER, 

Supervisor,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

CHERYL WALTON, Attorney; UNKNOWN CORRECTIONAL OFFICER, 

Prince William County Regional Adult Detention Center; 

BRANT, Correctional Officer; TED BODIE, Attorney,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior 

District Judge. (1:12-cv-00296-CMH-IDD)

Submitted: July 18, 2013 Decided: July 23, 2013

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derek Curtis, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Derek Curtis appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(b) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Curtis v. Cuccinelli, No. 1:12-cv-00296-

CMH-IDD (E.D. Va. filed Feb. 19 & entered Feb. 21, 2013). 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
**James
                  Stafford**







**James
        Stafford**
 **Chartered
        Accountants***
 Suite
        350
        - 1111 Melville Street
 Vancouver,
        British Columbia
 Canada
        V6E 3V6
 Telephone
        +1 604 669 0711
 Facsimile
        +1 604 669 0754
 * Incorporated professional


**Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**








We
      consent to the incorporation of our report dated 21 July 2006, with respect
      to
      the balance sheet of Typhoon Tunes Inc. as at 31 May 2006, and the related
      statement of operations, cash flows and the changes in stockholder’s deficiency
      from the date of inception on 30 August 2005 to 31 May 2006 in the Form 10-KSB
      of Typhoon Tunes Inc.









*/s/
“James
      Stafford”*





Vancouver,
      Canada


**Chartered
      Accountants**





10
      August
      2006
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

MICHAEL MCCLENTON

PETITION OF: CHERYL STURM :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 119 EM 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 8th day of January , 201 9

, in consideration of the Application for

Leave to Withdraw, this matter is REMANDED to the Court of Common Pleas of

Philadelphia County for that court to determine whether Michael McClenton’s present

counsel should be permitted to withdraw.

If present cou nsel is permitted to withdraw, the court is DIRECTED to resolve any

issues relative to Michael McClenton being appointed counsel or granted leave to

proceed pro se

.

The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County is DIRECTED to enter its

order regarding this remand within 60 days and to promptly notify this Court of its

determination.
## Attention: Christopher A. Prine, 

## Court of Appeals/ First District 301 Fannin Street 

# Houston, Texas77002_2066 i.",MiMwm.'wr

### H;77::v.-'::;T~' FIRSTCCl..;~:^~appeals H0US10M.TTXAS 

# MAY212015 Pay18'2°15

CLERK


## RE: Court of Appeals Number: 01-04-01071-CR Trial Court Case Number: 21,928, David James v. The Stac*?. 

## Dear Christopher A. Prine, Clerk: Sometime between 5-7-2015 and 5-13-2015 the inmate Trust Fund issued a withdrawal check for $4.24 (four dollars and tewnty four 

## cents to be mailedto you for the requested records, 7 pages of 

# Supplemental Clerk's Record. Due to the delay in thisprocedure, Ihad aFamilyMember send amoneyorder from Post Office, serial number: 22344760495 on May 4, 2015. I have not received requested 

## records and am now requesting to check your records and please 

# forward the requested records, either bysending two copies or one copyandrefund the additional $4.24 back to myInmate Trust Fund Account. I would appreciate immediate resolution of this and 

# the provision of the needed records so Ican proceed into the court

as soon as I recieve the records. Thank you. Submitted,

1251548 

## 3001 South Emily Drive 

# Beeville, Texas781Q2

### K (ft #• 

### A G y* £2 UJ £. u Q
<r & 

## €# *- T f- & *KO 'M

0} > *1< H <\l If) ** o rH (3 H •m CO

,rsj '>h i*"» 'rH -* 0 4J >rt .11 *= h e X 3 rt3 iJ
« 3 fH cu .c S r-{ U

- (OH 3 CD l-3 (!) O ~H G COH 3 C • H H 0 <~\ !> > O O "J d 0 o ?J OSM n •J U 3J •H SS h H .•J U •Si 3* •H a • < UO *j i-O 0) ^ o U 0 cn -H JS i &i ii cN o o * *j .'J o •a !Ji 'J [*» 4 -H 1) r^ id >j u 35 1> C u fd %o A x li -j 4 ,. a ;-t •H *M O c

- 0 *H c C jj .-o 0 {J 2 r^ -U *4 y '0 3 '•» H 3 o ;jo 0 o < ro S3 </>>

m

u CM O o

r-
**Exhibit 32**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

The undersigned, theChief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Congaree Bancshares, Inc.(the “Company”), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date of thiscertification:

 

1.               The annual report of the Company for theperiod ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on this date (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.               The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:     March 31,  2010 | By:                                                        | /s/ Charlie T. Lovering |
|---------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------|
|                                                    | Charlie T.  Lovering                                       |
|                                                    | Chief Financial  Officer (Principal Financial Officer) and |
|                                                    | Chief Executive  Officer (Principal Executive Officer)     |

 

1

----
#### Saul LOPEZ-VELASCO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-75016.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*674Submitted April 22, 2008.*

Filed May 5, 2008.

Michelle Gonzalez, Law Office of Michelle Gonzalez, Huntington Park, CA, for Petitioner.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Marshall Tamor Golding, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before: GRABER, FISHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Saul Lopez-Velasco, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying him cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and grant the petition for review.

After the agency’s decisions in this case, the BIA held in *Matter of Gonzalez-Silva,*24 I. & N. Dec. 218 (BIA 2007), that “an alien whose conviction precedes the effective date for section 237(a)(2)(E) of the [Immigration and Nationality] Act has not been ‘convicted under’ section 237(a)(2)” for purposes of cancellation of removal. *Id.*at 220. As Lopez-Velasco’s conviction for violating Cal.Penal Code § 273.5 occurred in 1994, we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.

In light of our disposition, we need not address Lopez-Velasco’s remaining contention.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of CurrencySharesSMMexican Peso Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Nick Bonos, Chief Financial Officer of Rydex Specialized Products LLC, the Sponsor of the Trust, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.



|                             
|-----------------------------
|Date: January 14, 2009       
|                             
|/s/ NICK BONOS               
|Nick Bonos*                  
|Chief Financial Officer      
|(principal financial officer)



|* | The Registrant is a trust and Nick Bonos is signing in his
capacity as the principal financial officer of Rydex Specialized Products LLC, the Sponsor of the Registrant.
|- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EX-10.1






WPT ENTERPRISES, INC.




Statement of Policy with Respect to Executive Severance




In the event that any member of the Company’s Executive management team (except as provided
below) is terminated without cause, the terminated executive becomes entitled to receive a
severance payment in an amount equal to six months of the executive’s base salary. A “termination
without cause” is any termination that is not for:




	 	1.	 	an executive’s willful and continued failure to substantially perform his or
her duties as reasonably assigned,






	 	2.	 	an executive’s indictment for a criminal offense related to theft or
embezzlement from the Company, which charges are not dismissed, or of which Executive
is not acquitted within one (1) year, or






	 	3.	 	an executive’s indictment for any felony offense that is not the result of
actions performed by the executive within the scope of activities approved by the
Board, which charges are not dismissed, or of which the executive is not acquitted,
within one (1) year.





This Statement of Policy shall not apply to Steven Lipscomb while he has any agreement in effect
with the Company providing for severance payments.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-88,882-01

EX PARTE JAYMES HARGROVE, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 2009-423,135-A IN THE 137th DISTRICT COURT

FROM LUBBOCK COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of two counts of

sexual assault of a child. He was sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment in count one and fifteen

years’ imprisonment in count two. He did not appeal his conviction.

Applicant contends, among other things, that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance

because counsel erroneously advised him that “he would be eligible for parole shortly thereafter

entering prison.” Applicant alleges this erroneous advice by counsel caused him to enter an

involuntary plea of guilty in this case. 
2

Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Strickland v. Washington,

466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte Patterson, 993 S.W.2d 114, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). In these

circumstances, additional facts are needed. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez, 334 S.W.2d 294, 294

(Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the appropriate forum for findings of fact. The trial court

shall order trial counsel to respond to Applicant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The

trial court may use any means set out in TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d).

If the trial court elects to hold a hearing, it shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. 

If Applicant is indigent and wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an

attorney to represent Applicant at the hearing. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. 

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether the

performance of Applicant’s trial counsel was deficient and, if so, whether counsel’s deficient

performance prejudiced Applicant. The trial court shall also make any other findings of fact and

conclusions of law that it deems relevant and appropriate to the disposition of Applicant’s claim for

habeas corpus relief.

This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The

issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time must

be requested by the trial court and shall be obtained from this Court. 

Filed: September 12, 2018

Do not publish
#### George Samir WASSOUF, Petitioner-Appellant v. Robert JOILCOEUR, District Director; Janet Napolitano, Secretary of U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Eric H. Holder, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 10-50601

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 14, 2011.

George Samir Wassouf, Lawrence, MA, pro se.

*332Eduardo R. Castillo, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, El Paso, TX, for Respondents-Appellees.

Before KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

George Samir Wassouf appeals the denial of his motion to reopen the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition and motion for reconsideration.

Wassouf s motion to reopen is construed as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Wassouf has failed to show the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion or motion for reconsideration. *See Bailey v. Cain,*609 F.3d 763, 767 (5th Cir.2010), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 931, 178 L.Ed.2d 774 (2011); *see also Midland West Corp. v. FDIC, 911 F.2d*1141, 1145 (5th Cir.1990).

The orders of the district court are AFFIRMED. Wassoufs motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. *See Schwander v. Blackburn,*750 F.2d 494, 502-03 (5th Cir.1985).

*

 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.
UNITED STATES CO URT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. GUSTAVO TORRES-SANCHEZ, a/k/a Joel Gonzales, Defendant-Appellant. No. 14-1176 (D.C. No. 1:13-CR-00372-RBJ-1) (D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before HOLMES , MATHESON , and McHUGH , Circuit Judges.

Gustavo Torres-Sanchez pleaded guilty to illegal re-entry of a previously deported alien following a fel ony conviction in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1) and was sentenced to twenty-one months’ imprisonment. In his plea agreement, Mr. Torres-Sanch ez waived his right to app eal his conviction and his

sentence if it did not exceed the maximum statutory pe nalty of ten years of

* This panel has determined that oral ar gument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It ma y be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32. 1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### August 19, 2014

Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court- 2 - imprisonment, did not depa rt or vary upwards from the applicable sentencing guidelines of eighteen to twenty-four mont hs, and was not based on an offense level greater than that calculated by the parties. Despite th is waiver, Mr. Torres-Sanchez filed a notice of appeal. The government moves to enforce the a ppeal waiver and di smiss this appeal

based on United States v. Hahn , 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Ci r. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). 1 In evaluating an appeal waiver, Hahn directs us to consider “(1) whether the disputed appeal falls within the scope of the wa iver of appellate rights; (2) whether the defendant knowingly and vol untarily waived his appellate rights; and (3) whether enforcing the waiver would result in a miscarri age of justice.” Id . at 1325. Mr. Torres-Sanchez, th rough counsel, concedes th at the appeal waiver is enforceable and that his app eal should be dismis sed. We gave Mr. Torres-Sanchez an opportunity to file a pro se response. To date , he has not done so. Upon our independent review of the pa rties’ filings, the pl ea agreement, and the transcripts of the plea and sent encing hearings, we conclude that Mr. Torres-Sanchez waived his right to bring this appeal. Accord ingly, we grant the government’s motion to enfor ce the plea agreement, and we dismiss this appeal.

Entered for the Court Per Curiam

1 The government also requested that th e case be remanded so that the written judgment could be corrected. Subsequently, the parties agreed th at the judgment was correct and remand was unnecessary.
**Exhibit      32.2**

**CERTIFICATION      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**UNDER**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**

|                                   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |
|----------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date: May                10, 2007 |   | /s/                JOSEPH J. WALLACE                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |
|                                   |   | Joseph                J. Wallace                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |
|                                   |   | Chief                Financial Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|                                   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |
|                                   |   | A                signed original of this written statement required by Section 906                has been                provided to Collectors Universe, Inc. and will be retained by Collectors                Universe, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission                or                its staff upon request. |
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 14

- 662 V

Filed: January 26, 2015

Not for P ublication

*************************************

GRETCHEN BRADY EBRIGHT

, *

*

Petitioner

, * Attorneys’ fees and costs decision b ased on

* s tipulation of f

act

v. *

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

*************************************

James R. Moyles

, Lemoyne, PA

, for petitioner.

Ann D. Martin , Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS ’ FEES AND COSTS 1

On January 26, 2015 , the parties filed a stipulation of fact in which they agreed on an

appropriate amount for attorneys’ fees and costs in this case

.

I n accordance with t he General Order #9 r equiremen t, petitioner assert s that s he did not

incur any co sts in pursuit of her petition. Petitioner submitted a draft application for attorne ys’

f ees and costs to respondent

. During informal discussions, respondent ra ised objections t o certain

items in petitioner’ s application

. Based on these objections, petitioner amend s her application for

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation f or the special master’ s action in this

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal

Claims’ s website, in accordance with the E

- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, 116 Stat. 2899,

2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special masters will be made

available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is

privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosur e would constitute a clearly

unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and

move to redact such information prior to the document = s disclosure. If the special master, upon review,

agrees that the id entified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special master shall

redact such material from public access.2

attor ne ys’ fees and costs to $ 2 1

, 9 38

. 17

. Respondent does not object to this amount. The

undersigned finds this amount to be reasonable. Accordingly, the court awards $ 2 1

, 9 38

. 17

, representing reimbursement for attorn eys’ fees and costs. The award shall be in the form of a

chec k payable jointly to petitioner and Moyles Law Firm in the amount of $ 2 1

, 9 38

. 17

.

In the absence of a motion f or review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the

court is directed to enter judgment herewith. 2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 26, 2015 s/ Laura D. Millman

Laura D. Millman

Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party , either separately or

jointly, filing a n otice renouncing the right to seek review.