alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul Vernon MCLEAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-6028.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 22, 2008.

Decided: May 28, 2008.

Paul Vernon McLean, Appellant Pro Se. Stanley D. Ragsdale, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*288PER CURIAM:

Paul Vernon McLean seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McLean 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.*
{"id":852,"date":"2016-01-15T10:20:13","date_gmt":"2016-01-15T14:20:13","guid":{"rendered":"\/?p=852"},"modified":"2018-08-10T10:22:29","modified_gmt":"2018-08-10T14:22:29","slug":"intermittent-outages-of-fmc-applications-on-january-16","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"\/intermittent-outages-of-fmc-applications-on-january-16\/","title":{"rendered":"Intermittent Outages of FMC Applications on January 16"},"content":{"rendered":"<div>January 15, 2016<\/div>\n<p>Tomorrow, January 16, 2015, Building Maintenance will be turning off the water to the building to make repairs and this will affect the A\/C units. Because of this, there may be intermittent outages to the FMC applications from 6:30 am to 4:20 pm EST.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>January 15, 2016 Tomorrow, January 16, 2015, Building Maintenance will be turning off the water to the building to make repairs and this will affect the A\/C units. Because of this, there may be intermittent outages to the FMC applications from 6:30 am to 4:20 pm EST.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[4],"tags":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/852"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=852"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/852\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":853,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/852\/revisions\/853"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=852"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=852"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=852"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
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 Annual Report of Brain Tree International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Donna T. Norman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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.








/s/   Donna T. Norman





Donna T. Norman


Chief Executive Officer


September 28, 2010











A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  The foregoing certifications are accompanying the Company's Form 10-K solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document.
No. 910.

#### Olive Ella Marilla Harding, Plaintiff in Error, *v.*Myrtle Gillett et al.

May 31, 1910.

*Mr. J. C. Robberts*and *Mr. George W. Buckner*for the plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Arthur A. Birney*and *Mr. Henry F. Woodard*for. the defendants in error.

In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for the plaintiff in error.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 American Oriental Bioengineering,
Inc. (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on the date hereof
(the "Report"), the undersigned officer of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of her knowledge:

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

         ii.      the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and will be furnished to the SEC or its staff
upon request.

/s/ Yanchun Li
------------------

Yanchun Li
Acting Chief Financial Officer
August 16, 2004



This Certification of Acting Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 is not "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 but is instead furnished as provided by
applicable rules of the Securities Exchange Commission.
Exhibit 10.4

                                 PROMISSORY NOTE

Principal Amount: $700,000                                 Due: March 1,2007

     FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, Obsidian Enterprises, Inc., a Delaware
corporation  ("Maker")  promises to pay to the order of DC Investments,  LLC, an
Indiana  limited  liability  corporation,  an  Ohio  corporation  ("Payee")  the
principal sum of Seven Hundred  Thousand and 00/100 Dollars  ($700,000.00)  with
interest  thereon  at the rate of  fifteen  percent  (15%) per  annum,  and with
payment  in full of the  entire  unpaid  principal  balance of this Note and all
interest  accrued but unpaid in respect of this Note on or before  March 1, 2007
("Maturity Date").

     Interest  shall be paid  monthly and a final  payment in an amount equal to
the then unpaid principal, all accrued and unpaid interest and any and all other
charges set forth herein shall be due and payable on March 1, 2007. Said monthly
interest  payments shall commence on the 1st day of April,  2002 and continue on
the same date of each month thereafter.

     In  addition,  Maker agrees to pay  interest  after  maturity of any unpaid
monthly interest payment or after the maturity of this Promissory Note at a rate
of interest  equal to twenty  percent  (20%) per annum,  until any late  monthly
interest payment or this Promissory Note is paid in full.

     All or a portion of the unpaid  principal  balance of this Note and accrued
interest thereon may be prepaid at any time without premium or penalty;  however
any prepayments shall be applied first to accrued and unpaid interest.

     Payment of both  principal  and interest of this Note are to be made at the
offices of Payee at 111  Monument  Circle,  Suite  3680,  Indianapolis,  Indiana
46204, or at such other place as the holder shall designate to Maker in writing,
in lawful money of the United States of America.  All payments  shall be applied
first to accrued interest and then to principal.

     In the event of Maker's  failure to make  timely  payment of any amount due
under this Note, or Maker's  failure to make timely payment of any other amounts
of any kind due from Maker to the holder, the holder may, at its option, declare
all amounts under this Note to be immediately due and payable.  If the holder is
required to bring suit to effect collection of this Note, all costs and expenses
of  collection,  including,  but not limited to, the holder's  attorneys'  fees,
shall be paid by Maker.

     This Note shall be construed  and enforced in  accordance  with the laws of
the  State of  Indiana,  without  giving  effect to  conflicts  or choice of law
principles.

     Made and  delivered  at  Indianapolis,  Indiana on this y^ day of February,
2002.

                                           OBSIDIAN-ENTERPRISES, INC.


                                           /s/ Timothy S. Durham
                                           Timothy S. Durham, Chairman
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-05-423-CV

MIKE PRESTON D/B/A RESCUE 	APPELLANT

SAFETY PRODUCTS

	V.

CHOCTAW AMBULANCE 	APPELLEE

AUTHORITY

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

	FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF DENTON COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	Appellant Mike Preston, d/b/a Rescue Safety Products, attempts to appeal from the trial court’s order granting the special appearance of one of the defendants, Appellee Choctaw Ambulance Authority.  Appellant’s suit remains pending in the trial court against the other defendant, Mike Eigel. 

	An order granting a special appearance is an interlocutory, appealable order.  Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(7) (Vernon Supp. 2005).  Such appeals are accelerated.  See Tex. R. App. P. 28.1.  A notice of appeal in an accelerated appeal must be filed within twenty days after the interlocutory order is signed.  Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(b).  Here, the trial court signed the interlocutory order granting the special appearance on September 27, 2005.2 Thus, the notice of appeal would have been due by October 17, 2005, but instead it was filed on November 21, 2005.  

	Appellate courts can extend the time for filing the notice of appeal if, within fifteen days of the deadline, the appellant files a notice of appeal and a motion to extend time to file the notice of appeal complying with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.5(b).  Tex. R. App. P. 26.3.  Here, neither a motion seeking an extension of time to file the notice of appeal nor the notice of appeal was filed within fifteen days of the October 17, 2005 notice of appeal due date. 

	We, therefore, sent a letter to Appellant explaining our concern that we lacked jurisdiction over this appeal and requesting a response setting forth any grounds that would establish our jurisdiction over the appeal.  In response, appellant sent us a copy of the “Request for Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law” that he had filed with the trial court on September 28, 2005.  However, a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law will not extend the appellate timetable in an accelerated appeal under rule 26.1.  In re K.A.F., 160 S.W.3d 923, 927 (Tex.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 483 (2005).

	The times for filing a notice of appeal are jurisdictional in this court, and absent a timely filed notice of appeal or an extension request, we must dismiss the appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 2, 25.1(b), 26.3; Digges v. Knowledge Alliance, Inc., 176 S.W.3d 463, 463 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (dismissing appellants’ appeal for want of jurisdiction for failing to timely file notice of appeal in accelerated appeal from interlocutory order).  Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

							PER CURIAM

PANEL D:	WALKER, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and MCCOY, J.

DELIVERED: January 19, 2006
Exhibit 99.1

In connection with the Annual Report of Global Diversified Industries
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending October 31, 2002
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Phillip Hamilton, President, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act, that:

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

(2)  The Information contained in the Report fairly represents,
     in all material aspects, the financial condition and result of
     operations of the Company.


                                          By: /s/  Phillip Hamilton
                                          Phillip Hamilton, President
<PAGE>

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement
No. 333-41415 on Form S-3 and Registration Statement Nos. 333-51193, 33-60093,
33-60091, 33-59091, 33-58148 and 33-58146 on Form S-8 of The Warnaco Group,
Inc. of our report dated March 3, 2000, appearing in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K/A of The Warnaco Group, Inc. for the year ended January 1, 2000.


Deloitte & Touche LLP

New York, New York
March 31, 2000
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1997
<CASH>                                         453,344
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,445,930
<ALLOWANCES>                                   289,037
<INVENTORY>                                  2,638,083
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,734,105
<PP&E>                                       8,660,469
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,741,718
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              22,093,344
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,414,782
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        66,797
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,096,460
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                22,093,344
<SALES>                                     41,382,836
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            41,515,132
<CGS>                                       30,035,386
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,801,423
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             536,851
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,141,472
<INCOME-TAX>                                   774,149
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,367,323
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,367,323
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .21
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1


        CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form
10-K) of Silicon Graphics, Inc. of our report dated July 20, 1999 included in
the 1999 Annual Report to Stockholders of Silicon Graphics, Inc. Our audits
also included the consolidated financial statement schedule of Silicon
Graphics, Inc. listed in item 14(a)2. This schedule is the responsibility of
the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based
on our audits. In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to
above, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as
a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth
therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (Form S-8 File Nos. 33-11703, 33-16529, 33-18717, 33-26003,
33-34919, 33-38536, 33-40879, 33-44305, 33-44333, 33-48890, 33-59098,
33-65190, 33-50999, 33-51275, 33-56017, 33-60213, 33-60215, 333-01211,
333-06403, 333-08651, 333-15977, 333-40849 and 333-76445) pertaining to the
Employee Stock Purchase Plan 1982 Stock Option Plan; 1984 Incentive Stock
Option Plan, 1985 Stock Incentive Program; 1986 Incentive Stock Option Plan;
1987 Stock Option Plan, 1998 Employee Stock Purchase Plan; 1993 Long-Term
Incentive Stock Plan; WaveFront Technologies, Inc. 1990 Stock Option Plan;
Alias Research, Inc. 1998 Employee Share Ownership Plan, 1989 Employee Share
Ownership Plan, 1990 Employee Share Ownership Plan, 1994 Stock Plan; Amended
and Restated 1996 Supplemental Non-Executive Equity Incentive Plan; 1989
Non-Employee Directors' Stock Option Plan; Cray Research, Inc. Amended and
Restated 1989 Employee Benefit Stock Plan; Directors' Stock Option Plan of
our report dated July 20, 1999 with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Silicon Graphics, Inc. incorporated herein by reference and of
our report included in the preceding paragraph with respect to the financial
statement schedule included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year
ended June 30, 1999.

                                                     /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Palo Alto, California
September 27, 1999


                                        -24-
#### Donald L. CAVINESS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tom FELKER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 07-16379.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 13, 2008.*

Filed May 16, 2008.

As Amended on Denial of Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc June 25, 2008.

*456Donald L. Caviness, Susanville, CA, pro se.

Matthew Dale Alger, Esq., Alger & Alger, Clovis, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Brian George Smiley, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: KLEINFELD and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and MILLS **, District Judge.

*

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

**

 The Honorable Richard Mills, Senior United States District Judge for the Central District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Donald L. Caviness (“Caviness”) was convicted on six counts of second-degree robbery under California law and was sentenced to 160 years to life in prison. The state courts affirmed his conviction and sentence on direct appeal and denied his petition for habeas corpus. Caviness here appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus. We AFFIRM.

Caviness first argues that his Sixth Amendment right to self-representation under *Faretta v. California,*422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), was violated. The record supports the state habeas court’s conclusion that Caviness’s request to proceed pro se was equivocal, *see id.*at 835, 95 S.Ct. 2525, because it was made as an “impulsive response” to the denial of his motion for substituted counsel, *see Jackson v. Ylst,*921 F.2d 882, 888 *457(9th Cir.1990). The state court’s decision on this issue was not “contrary to, [n]or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).1 The district court properly denied relief.

Caviness also argues that his right to be tried by an impartial jury, *see Irvin v. Dowd,*366 U.S. 717, 722, 81 S.Ct. 1639, 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961), was violated because one of the jurors lied at voir dire and was biased, but was nonetheless allowed to stay on the jury. This record does not support Caviness’s claim that the juror lied at voir dire, nor that he was tainted by actual or implied bias. *See id.; United States v. Gonzalez,*214 F.3d 1109, 1111 (9th Cir.2000). The state court’s rejection of Caviness’s juror bias claim is not “contrary to, [n]or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). The district court properly denied relief.

AFFIRMED.

***

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

1

. The case appellant cites in his petition for rehearing, *Adams*v. *Carroll,*875 F.2d 1441 (9th Cir.1989), is inapposite because it came down before Congress passed AEDPA in 1996 and was decided without the deferential standard in § 2254. Also, the cases differ factually, the context making Caviness's statement far more plainly equivocal than in *Adams.*
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Jim Kelly, Karl Baldwin, and Wood Master Homes v. Karen 

Tracy 

Appellate case number: 01-18-00913-CV

Trial court case number: 1091620

Trial court: County Civil Court at Law No. 1 of Harris County

Appellee, Karen Tracy, has filed her fifth motion to extend time, citing appellee’s 

death on February 25, 2019, while this appeal was pending. Appellee’s motion explains

that “[p]robate has not been established and the undersigned is not authorized to proceed 

with the representation of the estate,” and indicates appellee’s sister may have employed 

her own counsel and begun probate proceedings. As with her previous motions, appellee 

requests a 30-day extension. Ten days have passed without a response from appellants. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 10.3(a)(1). Although our prior orders warned no further extensions would 

be granted absent exceptional circumstances, we find appellee’s death to be an exceptional 

circumstance. Accordingly, we grant the motion and order appellee’s briefing deadline 

extended to November 18, 2019.

We further notify appellee that the Court will consider requests for 60-day 

extensions of time in this case so long as appellee’s motion updates the status of the probate 

proceedings and the approximate date appellee’s brief may be filed. Appellee’s motions to 

extend time must continue to comply with the Rules. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.1, 10.5(b).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

  Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: _October 31, 2019_____________________