alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Leonard H. ARLINE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 13-7966.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 24, 2014.

Decided: April 28, 2014.

Leonard H. Arline, Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Leonard H. Arline seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his Fed. R. Civ.P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition, and dismissing it as unauthorized. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012); *Reid v. Angelone,*369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). 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) (2012). 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 Arline has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.

*258Additionally, we construe Arline’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2254 petition. *United States v. Winestock,*340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the petitioner guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) (2012). Arline’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition.

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.*
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before HOLIFIELD, ATTANASIO , and HACKEL Appellate Military Judges

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES Appellee

v. Jeremiah R
. MEDLIN Private First Class (E

- 2 ), U.S. Marine Corps Appellant
No. 20 22 00004

_________________________ Decided: 27 April 2022 Appeal from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary Military Judge: Geoffrey G. Hengerer Sentence adjudged 20 September 2021 by a special court

- martial convened at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune , North Carolina, consisting of a military judge sitting alone

. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment : reduction to E

- 1, confinement for 2 months , and a bad

- conduct discharge. For Appellant: Lieutenant Commander W. Scott Stoebner , JAGC, USNUnited States v. Medlin , NMCCA No. 20 22 00004 Opinion of the Court

2 _________________________ This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2 (a)

.

_________________________ PER CURIAM : After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. 1 T he findin gs and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR. Clerk of Court

1 Articles 59 & 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Timothy S. Davidson, Chief Financial Officer of Natural Health Trends Corp., certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Natural Health Trends Corp.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: March 28, 2007 /s/ Timothy S. Davidson         Timothy S. Davidson    Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 23.1



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-73506, 333-07441, 333-30525 and 333-30605 of Mikohn Gaming Corporation on
Form S-8 of our report dated February 26, 2000 (January 18, 2001 as to Notes 21
and 22) (which expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory
paragraph relating to the restatement described in Note 22), appearing in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Mikohn Gaming Corporation for the year ended
December 31, 1999.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP


Las Vegas, Nevada
January 30, 2001

                                      85
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### International Trade Administration 

          - [A-580-834] 

# AGENCY:

Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. 

# ACTION:

Notice of extension of time limit for the preliminary results of antidumping duty administrative review. 

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Commerce (“Department”) is extending the time limit for the preliminary results of the review of stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from the Republic of Korea. This review covers the period January 4, 1999 through June 30, 2000. 

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

January 5, 2001. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Laurel LaCivita, AD/CVD Enforcement Group III, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4243. 

## The Applicable Statute 

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”). 

## Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results 

                        Because of the complex issues enumerated in the Memorandum from Edward C. Yang to Joseph A. Spetrini,                         *Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of Administrative Review of Certain Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Korea,*                         on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU) of the Main Commerce Building, Room B-099, we find that it is not practicable to complete this review by the scheduled deadline of April 2, 2001. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results of review by 90 days until July 2, 2001.                     

Dated: December 29, 2000. 

Joseph A. Spetrini, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary, AD/CVD Enforcement Group III. 

[FR Doc. 01-386 Filed 1-4-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> BD
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997             DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         328,640                 405,609
<RECEIVABLES>                                  567,567                 529,434
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0                       0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                0                       0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                                  0                       0
<PP&E>                                          37,020                  32,148
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,091,364               1,122,200
<SHORT-TERM>                                 1,039,838               1,082,546
<PAYABLES>                                     382,298                 410,079
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0                       0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                  0                       0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                                   0                       0
<LONG-TERM>                                          0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          145,000                 145,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                       185,231                 185,231
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,091,364               1,122,200
<TRADING-REVENUE>                                    0                       0
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                             4,821                  21,055
<COMMISSIONS>                                  526,608               1,063,243
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                        0                       0
<FEE-REVENUE>                                   99,114                 724,825
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 461                   5,916
<COMPENSATION>                                 434,118               1,411,957
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,056)                 190,962
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     (3,056)                 190,962
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,056)                 190,962
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23 - 0178 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. SHAWN WAYNE MALATARE,

Defendant and Appellant.

**G RANT**  Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is given an extension of time until September 27 , 2023 , to prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court August 22 2023

08/22/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0178
Exhibit 32   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002    In connection with the Quarterly Report of Oakridge Global Energy Solutions, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2015, as filed with the SEC on the date hereof (the Quarterly Report), we, Stephen J. Barber, Executive Chairman and CEO of the Registrant, and Tami L. Tharp, CFO of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1) The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.   Date:August 19, 2015By:/s/Stephen J. BarberStephen J. Barber, Executive Chairman, CEO and a Director  Date:August 19, 2015By:/s/Tami L. TharpTami L. Tharp, Chief Financial Officer
[No. 57652-6-I.

Division One.

October 1, 2007.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Jeffrey Michael Burch, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 04-1-06022-9, Andrea A. Darvis, J., entered September 2, 2005. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Grosse, J., concurred in by Baker and Agid, JJ.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Farm Credit Administration

# AGENCY:

Farm Credit Administration.

# SUMMARY:

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3)), of the forthcoming special meeting of the Farm Credit Administration Board (Board).

# DATE AND TIME:

The special meeting of the Board will be held at the offices of the Farm Credit Administration in McLean, Virginia, on February 21, 2001, from 9 a.m. until such time as the Board concludes its business.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kelly Mikel Williams, Secretary to the Farm Credit Administration Board, (703) 883-4025, TDD (703) 883-4444.

# ADDRESSES:

Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102-5090.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Parts of this meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available), and parts of this meeting will be closed to the public. In order to increase the accessibility to Board meetings, persons requiring assistance should make arrangements in advance. The matters to be considered at the meeting are:

### Open Session

                    A.                     *Approval of Minutes*
    - January 11, 2001 (Open)

                    B.                     *Reports*
    - Corporate Approvals Report

                    C.                     *New Business*
    - Regulations

1. Disclosure—Annual Report—Final Rule

2. FAMC Risk-Based Capital—Final Rule

###                     Closed Session [*] 

                    D.                     *Report*
    - OSMO Report

Dated: February 14, 2001.

Kelly Mikel Williams,

Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.

# Footnotes

*.                             Session closed-exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(8) and (9).                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 01-4183 Filed 2-14-01; 4:58 pm]

BILLING CODE 6705-01-P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RODNEY JEROME WOMACK, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

D. SWINGLE, M.D./Chief Medical Officer, 

High Desert State Prison; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-15075 

D.C. No. 2:17-cv-00829-JAM-AC 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 15, 2019**

Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Rodney Jerome Womack appeals pro se from the 

district court’s order denying him leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in his 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical 

needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JAN 22 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-15075 

Washington v. L.A. Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 833 F.3d 1048, 1054 (9th Cir. 2016). We 

affirm.

The district court properly denied Womack’s motion to proceed IFP because 

at the time Womack filed the complaint, he had filed three actions that qualified as 

strikes, and he did not plausibly allege that he was “under imminent danger of 

serious physical injury” at the time he lodged the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); 

Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053, 1055-56 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing 

the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g)). 

AFFIRMED.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS for the Fifth Circuit

_____________________________________

No. 97-30329 Summary Calendar

_____________________________________ DAVID H. HUGHES and TYRONE G. CLARK, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
VERSUS

AMERICAN PUBLIC LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants, AMERICAN PUBLIC LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, DENTA-CARE MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION, INC., DENTA-CARE MARKETING AND ADMINISTRATION, INC., JOHNNY H. WILLIAMSON, and EDWIN R. PEARCE, Defendant-Appellees.

______________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

(95-CV-194)

______________________________________________________ September 18, 1997 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * We affirm the judgment of the district court on the basis of the district court's well-reasoned ruling of February 20, 1997.
AFFIRMED.2
EXHIBIT 12.1

                             SOLA INTERNATIONAL INC.

                       RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                             (Dollars in thousands)
                                   (Unaudited)


                                                        Year Ended March 31,
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                  1998         1997       1996
                                                 --------    --------   --------
Fixed charges:
   Interest expense ..........................   $ 16,988    $ 16,187   $ 12,412
   Interest capitalized during period ........        666        --         --
   Amortization of financing costs ...........        429         414        273
   Interest portion of rental expense ........      2,607       1,862      1,790
                                                 --------    --------   --------
Total fixed charges ..........................   $ 20,690    $ 18,463   $ 14,475
                                                 --------    --------   --------

Earnings:
   Income from continuing operations before
     income taxes ............................   $ 75,952    $ 41,386   $ 48,612

Fixed charges per above ......................     20,690      18,463     14,475
Less interest capitalized during the period ..       (666)       --         --
                                                 --------    --------   --------

Earnings as adjusted .........................   $ 95,976    $ 59,849   $ 63,087
                                                 ========    ========   ========

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges ...........       4.64        3.24       4.36
                                                 ========    ========   ========
941 A.2d 1258

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent, v. James McKENZIE, Petitioner.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Jan. 4, 2008.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 4th day of January, 2008, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED and this matter is REMANDED to the Superior Court for consideration of *Commonwealth v. Dunlap,*596 Pa. 147, 941 A.2d 671 (2007).