alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6502
DAVID SKUNDOR, and the class of similarly situated persons being all prisoners housed in the Quilliams I and II Units at the Mount Olive Correctional Complex, Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus
BEVERLY GANDEE; JAMES RUBENSTEIN; LESLIE K. TYREE; THOMAS MCBRIDE, Warden, in his official and personal capacity; KATHRYN LUCAS; JOE WOOD, all in their personal capacities, Defendants - Appellees, GARRY BLOCKER, Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Charles H. Haden II, District Judge. (CA-02-499) Submitted: May 13, 2004 Decided: May 20, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Skundor, Appellant Pro Se. Heather A. Connolly, OFFICE OF- 2 - THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 3 - PER CURIAM: David Skundor appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Skundor v. Gandee , No. CA-02-499 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 11, 2004). 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
----

|                                                                                                     | PACIFIC      OFFICE PROPERTIES TRUST, INC.   By:                     /s/ Jay H. Shidler Name:           Jay      H. ShidlerTitle:           Chairman      of the Board  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|         ATTEST:  /s/ Tamara EdwardsTamara      EdwardsCorporate      Secretary  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |
Exhibit 23.1

 

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.333-04712, No. 333-03728, No. 33-89322, No. 333-02903, No. 333-71147, No. 333-38882, No. 333-102108 and No. 333-102109 of West Marine, Inc., all on Form S-8, of our report dated February 14, 2003, which report expresses an unqualified opinion andincludes an explanatory paragraph relating to an accounting change, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of West Marine, Inc. for the year ended December 28, 2002. 

 

/s /    DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

 

San Francisco, California 

March 18, 2003
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose BARDALES-REYES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-40620

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 8, 2011.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Jose Bardales-Reyes Houston, TX, pro se.

Before KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Bardales-Reyes has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Bardales-Reyes has filed a response. Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Bar-dales-Reyes’s response discloses no non-frivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6489
STANTON MAURICE HOFFMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LEWIS DAVIS, Correctional Lieutenant; FRANKLIN FREEMAN, Secretary of Corrections, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 96-6709
STANTON MAURICE HOFFMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LEWIS DAVIS, Correctional Lieutenant; FRANKLIN FREEMAN, Secretary of Corrections, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Richard L. Voorhees, Chief District Judge; Graham C. Mul len, Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judges. (CA-94-71-MU)2 Submitted: July 25, 1996 Decided: August 7, 1996 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. No. 96-6489 affirmed in part and dismissed in part and No. 96-6709 dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stanton Maurice Hoffman, Appellant Pro Se. Michael F. Easley, David L. Woodard, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: In No. 96-6709, Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing several claims, but denying in part the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Similarly, in No. 96-6489, Appellantappeals the district court's orders denying several mundane pretrial motions and declining to issue a preliminary injunction. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order appealed inNo. 96-6709 is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We therefore dismiss that appeal. In No. 96-6489, to the extent that Appellant seeks review of the denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction, this court has jurisdiction over that portion of the appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (1988). We note, however, that Appellant failed to make the necessary showing of a likelihood of success on the merits to warrant a preliminary injunction. See Blackwelder Furniture Co. v. Seilig Mfg. Co. , 550 F.2d 189, 193 (4th Cir. 1977). Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying the motion and is hereby affirmed. As the remainder of this appeal seeks review of mundane pretrial motions, it is also interlocutory and is therefore dismissed. We dismiss No. 96-6709 as interlocutory. In No. 96-6489, we affirm the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction and dismiss the remainder of the appeal. We dispense with oral argument4 because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

No. 96-6489 - AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART No. 96-6709 - DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.2




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 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 Novastar Financial, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Rodney E.
Schwatken, Chief Financial 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: August 11, 2010
            /s/ Rodney
      E. SchwatkenRodney E. SchwatkenChief Financial Officer


This
certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to
the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.




---
I

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.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. PLANNING, DESIGN, AND CONSTRUCTION OF

4 WEST COURT OF NATIONAL MUSEUM OF NAT5 URAL HISTORY BUILDING.

6 The Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution

7 is authorized to plan, design, and construct the West

8 Court of the National Museum of Natural History build9 ing.
2

•HR 2677 IH

1 SEC. 2. FUNDING.

2 No appropriated funds may be used to pay any ex3 pense of the planning, design, and construction authorized

4 by section 1.

Æ
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

September 5, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00357

- CR & 04

- 18

- 00358

- CR

Carlos Javier CHAVEZ

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 6, Bexar County, Texa s Trial Court No. 551667 & 551669 Honorable Wayne A. Christian, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellant ’ s brief was due August 6, 2018 , but was not filed. This court notified appellant ’ s appointed counsel , Suzanne M. Kramer, of the deficiency on August 9, 2018

. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(b)(2). The letter required appellant to respond in writing within ten days, explaining why the brief has not been filed and demonstrating that counsel has taken affirmative steps to prepare and file the brief. The letter further advised counsel that if an adequa te response was not timely filed, the court would abate the appeal for an abandonment hearing in the trial

court. We received no response. Therefore, p ursuant to Rule 38.8(b)(2) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we ordered this appeal abated and remanded to the trial court for a hearing

to determine whether : (1) appellant desires to prosecute his appeal ; and (2) counsel has abandoned the appeal. See id. We further ordered t he trial court to make written findings and

conclusions on these issues. See id. R. 38.8(b)(3). On September 4, 2018, supplemental clerk’s

records containing the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed in this court. In its findings, the trial court found that “Appellant’s attorney, Ms. Suzanne Kramer, confirmed that Appellant does desire to continue to prosecute the appeal” and “Appellant’s attorney, Ms. Suzanne Kramer informed the court that sh e had reviewed the record in this case and would be filing a brief on August 30, 2018.” (emphasis added). Despite Ms. Kramer’s statement to the trial court, no brief has been filed in this court.

Accordingly, we ORDER this appeal reinstated on the cour t’s docket and adopt the findings and conclusions of the trial court. We ORDER attorney Suzanne M. Kramer to file appellant’s br ief in this court on or before October 5, 2018 . No further extension s of time will be granted absent writ ten proof of extraordinary circumstances. If attorney Suzanne M. Kramerfails to file appellant ’s brief by the date ordered, she may be ordered to appear and show cause why she should not be held in civil or criminal contempt of this court or otherwise sa nctioned.

We further ORDER the clerk of this court to serve this order on attorney Suzanne M.

Kramer by first class United States mail and by certified mail, return receipt requested, with delivery restricted to addressee only, or give other personal no tice of this order with proof of delivery.

We order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on the trial court and all

counsel.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN W ITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 5th day of September, 2018

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

, Clerk of Court
#### Morris REESE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. T-MOBILE USA, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Morris Reese, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AT & T Mobility II LLC, Defendant-Appellee. Morris Reese, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Celico Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Defendant-Appellee. *968Morris Reese, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tracfone Wireless, Inc., Defendant-Appellee. Morris Reese, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sprint-Nextel Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

Nos. 2014-1519, 2014-1520, 2014-1522, 2014-1523, 2014-1524.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

July 25, 2014.

Morris Reese, Westlake Village, CA, pro se.

Greer N. Shaw, Esq., Snell & Wilmer, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for T-Mobile USA, Inc.

Michael J. Songer, Crowell & Moring, LLP, Washington, DC, for AT *&*T Mobility II LLC.

Kevin Paul Anderson, Wiley Rein, LLP, Washington, DC, for Célico Partnership.

Sharon A. Israel, Mayer Brown, LLP, Houston, TX, for Tracfone Wireless, Inc.

Jay E. Heidrick, Attorney, Polsinelli Shugart PC, Kansas City, MO, for Sprint-Nextel Corporation.

Before REYNA, BRYSON, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.

ON MOTION

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

In these related appeals, Morris Reese seeks interlocutory review of orders of the District Court for the Central District of California granting summary judgment and holding that the doctrine of laches barred the underlying complaints. Because these appeals are premature, we grant appellees’ motions to dismiss.

In response to Mr. Reese’s separate charges of patent infringement, several of the defendants filed counterclaims, seeking declaratory judgment of noninfringement, patent invalidity, and inequitable conduct. After the district court granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, he directed the parties to file a joint status report detailing what issues remain for the court to resolve. Mr. Reese then filed motions for reconsideration of the summary judgment orders, which remain pending.

Section 1295(a)(1) of Title 28 authorizes this court to review “a final decision” of a district court in a patent infringement case, *i.e.,*a decision that “ ‘ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.’ ” *Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard,*486 U.S. 517, 521-22, 108 S.Ct. 1945, 100 L.Ed.2d 517 (1988) (quoting *Gatlin v. United States,*324 U.S. 229, 233, 65 S.Ct. 631, 89 L.Ed. 911 (1945)). That has not yet occurred in this case. The district court was clear that the summary judgment orders did not call an end to the litigation, and Mr. Reese’s motions for reconsideration and the defendants’ counterclaims are still unadjudicated. Thus, Mr. Reese’s notices of appeal were clearly premature.

Accordingly,

*969It Is ORDERED That:

(1) The motions to dismiss are granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
1 The Honorable Thomas M. Shanahan, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 03-3785

___________ United States of America, *
* Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Eric L. English, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: October 7, 2004 Filed: August 9, 2005

___________ Before MELLOY, LAY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Eric English pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute cocaine base, in violationof 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1), using a firearm in furtherance of a drugtrafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and a forfeiture count under 21 U.S.C. § 853. The district court 1 sentenced English to consecutive prison terms of 135 months on the drug count and 60 months on the firearm count, and two concurrent 4-year supervised release terms. For reversal, English argues that the-2- district court erred in accepting his plea as to the firearm charge because it was not supported by a sufficient factual basis.
Upon careful review, we find that there was a sufficient factual basis to accept English’s guilty plea to the firearm charge. At the plea hearing, English admitted that he committed the offenses charged against him, and the government stated that if the case went to trial it would produce witnesses who would testify to English’s daily habit of carrying a gun. SeeBailey v. United States , 516 U.S. 137, 142-43 (1995) (government must prove that defendant used or carried firearm during and in relation to drug-trafficking crime for sentence enhancement pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)); United States v. Marks , 38 F.3d 1009, 1012 (8th Cir. 1994) (factual basis for plea is established when court determines there is sufficient evidence at time of plea upon which court may reasonably determine that defendant likely committed offense), cert. denied , 514 U.S. 1067 (1995); Adkins v. United States , 298 F.2d 842, 844 (8th Cir.) (per curiam) (plea of guilty is admission of all essential elements of indictment; government need not provide further proof for judgment of conviction), cert. denied , 370 U.S. 954 (1962).
English also challenges his sentence based on Blakely v. Washington , 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004), and United States v. Booker , 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005), which declared the Sentencing Guidelines effectively advisory in all cases. B ecause he raises a Blakely /Booker claim for the first time on appeal, we review for plain error under the standard set forth in United States v. Pirani , 406 F.3d 543, 552 (8th Cir. 2005). To show prejudice under Pirani , English must show a reasonable probability that the district court would have granted a lesser sentence had it not treated the Guidelines as mandatory. Id. Having carefully reviewed the record in this case, we find nothing to suggest that the district court would have granted a lesser sentence under an advisory Guidelines regime.
Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>         5
<LEGEND>



THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION FROM THE FORM
10-QSB FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>      1,000

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                             238
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      492
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  8957
<PP&E>                                            7996
<DEPRECIATION>                                     483
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   26549
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             7990
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            16
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                7
<PREFERRED>                                          4
<OTHER-SE>                                        7324
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     26553
<SALES>                                           3904
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  3904
<CGS>                                             3070
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     4485
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 910
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (581)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (581)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (581)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.10)


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23(i)**

 

**EXHIBIT 23(i)**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

To the Board of Directors 

KS Bancorp, Inc. 

Kenly, North Carolina 

 

As independent auditors,we hereby consent to the incorporation of our report, dated January 16, 2004, included in this annual report of KS Bancorp, Inc. and Subsidiary on Form 10-KSB, into the Company’s previously filed Form S-8 Registration Statement File No.333-46287. 

 

/s/ Dixon Hughes PLLC 

 

Sanford, North Carolina 

March 12, 2004 

 

62
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


CEO Certification. In connection with the Quarterly Report of First Aviation
Services Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 31,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Michael C. Culver, 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.

/s/ Michael C. Culver
---------------------
President and Chief Executive Officer
December 15, 2003



                                       20