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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-2165

DHIRAJ CHHAPARWAL,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

WEST VIRGINIA COLLEGE OF MEDICINE AND HEALTH SCIENCES 

CENTER; UNIVERSITY HEALTH ASSOCIATES; NORMAN FERRARI, III, 

M.D.; MARTIN WEISSE, M.D.; MATHEW BRUNNER, M.D.; NANCY 

BRUNNER, M.D.; KATHLEEN PERKINS, M.D.; JENNIFER PUMPHREY, 

M.D.; JEAN SOMESHWAR, M.D.; MELISSA LARZO, M.D.; MEGAN 

TROISCHT, M.D.; HEATHER HIXENBAUGH, M.D.; MICHAEL WOLFE; 

JOHN/JANE DOES I-X, 

Defendants – Appellees,

and

WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS, INCORPORATED; BRUCE 

MCCLYMONDS, President and CEO, 

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Frederick P. Stamp, 

Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:07-cv-00089-FPS-JSK)

Submitted: May 18, 2010 Decided: June 9, 2010

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Dhiraj Chhaparwal, Appellant Pro Se. Christi R.B. Stover, 

STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP, Morgantown, West Virginia; Richard 

Michael Yurko, Jr., STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP, Clarksburg, West 

Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Dhiraj Chhaparwal appeals the district court’s order 

granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellees on 

Chhaparwal’s complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Chhaparwal v. WV College of Medicine, 

No. 1:07-cv-00089-FPS-JSK (N.D. W. Va. Sept. 9, 2009). We also 

deny Chhaparwal’s motion for transcripts at government expense. 

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.

AFFIRMED
| **Exhibit 32.1** |
|------------------|

**CERTIFICATION**

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, I, Scott D. Kaplan, Chief Executive Officer of Pruco Life Insurance Company of New Jersey, hereby certify that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, containing the financialstatements of Pruco Life of New Jersey Variable Contract Real Property Account (a separate account of Pruco Life Insurance Company of New Jersey) and The Prudential Variable Contract Real Property Partnership (the “Report”), fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Pruco Life of New Jersey Variable ContractReal Property Account and The Prudential Variable Contract Real Property Partnership.

|   | Date: November 10, 2006      /s/ Scott D. Kaplan                                                                |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                 |
|   | Name: Scott D. Kaplan      Title: Chief Executive OfficerPruco Life Insurance Company of New Jersey        |

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION FROM THE ACCOMPANYING
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           6,614
<SECURITIES>                                     7,558
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,045
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,907)
<INVENTORY>                                      3,445
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,294<F1>
<PP&E>                                          40,230<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                                (27,580)<F3>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  54,948
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,323
<BONDS>                                          1,322<F4>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        78,073
<OTHER-SE>                                    (38,770)<F5>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    54,948
<SALES>                                         18,524
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,234<F6>
<CGS>                                           14,152
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,152
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,972
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,198
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 193
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,083)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,083)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,083)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.75)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.75)
<FN>
<F1>Includes Costs and estimated earnings in excess of billings on uncompleted
contracts of $2,829 and other current assets of $710.
<F2>Includes portable simulation theaters and film inventory.
<F3>Includes portable simulation theaters and film inventory.
<F4>Includes the non-current portions of capital losses.
<F5>Accumulated deficit.
<F6>Includes interest income of $710.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2677 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2677

  To authorize the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution to 
 plan, design, and construct the West Court of the National Museum of 
                       Natural History building.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 20, 1993

 Mr. Mineta (for himself, Mr. Natcher, and Mr. McDade) introduced the 
following bill; which was referred jointly to the Committees on Public 
           Works and Transportation and House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution to 
 plan, design, and construct the West Court of the National Museum of 
                       Natural History building.

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

SECTION 1. PLANNING, DESIGN, AND CONSTRUCTION OF WEST COURT OF NATIONAL 
              MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY BUILDING.

    The Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution is authorized 
to plan, design, and construct the West Court of the National Museum of 
Natural History building.

SEC. 2. FUNDING.

    No appropriated funds may be used to pay any expense of the 
planning, design, and construction authorized by section 1.

                                 <all>
```
#### James Lee PINKERTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J.K. WOODRING, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 08-56975.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 14, 2010.*

Filed Jan. 5, 2011.

James Lee Pinkerton, San Pedro, CA, pro se.

Robert Edward Dugdale, Esquire, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner James Lee Pinkerton appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Pinkerton alleges over a dozen constitutional violations related to the 2004-2007 parole proceedings and the United States Parole Commission’s decisions denying parole. We reject Pinkerton’s claims for the reasons stated by the district court.

Pinkerton also contends that, under 28 C.F.R. § 2.53 and 18 U.S.C. § 4206(d), he should be paroled from his life sentence effective January 11, 2007. Pinkerton has failed to show that he is entitled to relief on this claim.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00198-CR

Janelle Vanei Loggins

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From Criminal District Court No. 1

of Tarrant County (1266512W)

March 7, 2013

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
2

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00197-CR

NO. 02-12-00198-CR

JANELLE VANEI LOGGINS APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellant Janelle Vanei Loggins appeals her convictions for attempted 

evading arrest or detention and for endangering a child – criminal negligence

after the trial court revoked her deferred adjudication community supervision, 

adjudicated her guilty, and sentenced her to six months’ confinement in each 

case, to be served concurrently. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 22.041(c), 38.04

(West 2011 & Supp. 2012). 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
3

Loggins’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw 

as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel’s brief and motion meet 

the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967), by 

presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are 

no arguable grounds for relief. This court afforded Loggins the opportunity to file 

a pro se brief on her own behalf, but she did not do so. The State did not file a 

brief.

As the reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of the 

record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining that the appeals

are frivolous. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1991); Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 923 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no 

pet.). Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. 

Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). 

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We agree with 

counsel that these appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing 

in the record that arguably might support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 

S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s 

motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgments.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER, GARDNER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
4

DELIVERED: March 7, 2013
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Quarterly Report of Pioneer Companies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
Y. McGovern, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Date:  May 13, 2004                 /s/ Michael Y. McGovern
                                    -----------------------------
                                          Michael Y. McGovern
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer
* P ursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-30306

____________

DAVID M DUCHOW,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; RICHARD BACA; JANICE

ELMORE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(95-CV-2121-L)

April 7, 1997

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

David Duchow appeals the dismissal of his various claims

against the United States and officials of the U.S. embassy in

Bolivia. After carefully reviewing the record, we find no error,

and we affirm.

The district court dismissed Duchow’s petition for a writ of

mandamus because Duchow failed to show any clear, ministerial duty

owed him by the United States government. The court also dismissed

Duchow’s petition for writ of habeas corpus because Duchow was notin custody of the United States government nor of any state.

Duchow’s mandamus and habeas claims are without merit, and for the

reasons articulated by the district cou rt, we affirm their

dismissal.

Duchow sued for injunctive relief, but failed to meet the four

criteria required to justify such relief. We have held that, in

o rder to merit injunctive relief, the petitioner must sho w

i rreparable injury, substantial likelihood of success on the

merits, favorable balance of the hardships, and no adverse effect

on the public interest. Black Fire Fighters Association v. Dallas

,

905 F.2d 63, 65 (1990). The district court dismissed Duchow’s plea

for injunctive relief based on the Act of State Doctrine and

because it held that the United States had not waived its sovereign

immunity from suit. We do not reach those issues here, however.

After a reviewing the record, we find that Duchow has failed to

show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and that

both the balance of the hardships and the public interest weigh

against his claims.

AFFIRMED.
2009-1711.

#### Torrance v. Meyers.

In Mandamus and Prohibition. On October 26, 2009, this court found Saint Torrance to be a vexatious litigator under S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(5)(B). This court further ordered that Torrance was prohibited from continuing or instituting legal proceedings in this court without first obtaining leave. Upon review of the documents filed in this ease, the court finds the case to be without merit. Accordingly,

*1440It is ordered by the court, sua sponte, that the case is dismissed and all pending motions are denied as moot.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS 
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-1997
<CASH>                                         70,610
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  29,792,649
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,051,813
<INVENTORY>                                    38,788,587
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               69,693,156
<PP&E>                                         49,542,894
<DEPRECIATION>                                 18,447,233
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 101,364,354
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          12,292,847
<BONDS>                                        26,203,289
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       7,222,550
<OTHER-SE>                                     52,057,233
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   101,364,354
<SALES>                                        27,285,730
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               27,285,730
<CGS>                                          22,593,159
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  22,593,159
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               234,733
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             677,979
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,367,779
<INCOME-TAX>                                   503,344
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            864,435
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   864,435
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.15
        


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT
      31.1**


Certifications




I,
      Lei,
      Ming, Chief Executive Officer certify that:





1.
      I have
      reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Dark Dynamite Inc.





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





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





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





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





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





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





5.
      The
      registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
      recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
      registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
      functions):





a)
      All
      significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which
      could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize
      and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors
      any
      material weaknesses in internal controls (all of which do not apply);
      and





b)
      Any
      fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
      who
      have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls, (all of which
      do
      not apply); and





Date:
      May
      20, 2007





/s/
      Lei, Ming


Lei,
      Ming
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
33-72086, No. 33-86040, No. 333-05643 and No. 333-56215 of The Talbots, Inc. and
its subsidiaries on Form S-8 of our reports dated March 15, 2000, appearing in
and incorporated by reference in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Talbots,
Inc. and its subsidiaries for the year ended January 29, 2000.





/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
April 28, 2000
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-14000

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

AMIR ASHERIAN, 

HOOSHANG ASHERIAN, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

versus

ERICA FORD, 

ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS, 

Defendants-Appellants.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

USCA11 Case: 23-14000 Document: 7-1 Date Filed: 01/22/2024 Page: 1 of 2
2 Opinion of the Court 23-14000

D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cv-04460-JPB

____________________

Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction. Erica Ford and all other occupants of a property owned by 

Amir and Hooshang Asherian appeal from the district court’s order 

remanding the case to state court. We lack jurisdiction to review 

the remand order because it was based on the district court’s lack 

of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)-(d); New v. 

Sports & Recreation, 114 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (11th Cir. 1997); Whole 

Health Chiropractic & Wellness, Inc. v. Humana Med Plan, Inc., 254 

F.3d 1317, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001). 

No petition for rehearing may be filed unless it complies 

with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 40-3 and all 

other applicable rules.

USCA11 Case: 23-14000 Document: 7-1 Date Filed: 01/22/2024 Page: 2 of 2