alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6153

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus CLARENCE D. COAKLEY, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CR-96-26)) Submitted: July 25, 2005 Decided: August 19, 2005 Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clarence D. Coakley, Appellant Pro Se. Jane J. Jackson, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Clarence D. Coakley seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) challenging the denial of relief on Coakley’s earlier Rule 60 motion that the district court construed as a motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); seeReid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 368-69 (4th Cir. 2004) (holding that order denying Rule 60(b) relief in habeas setting is final order in habeas proceeding and is subject to certificate of appealability requirement of § 2253(c)). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Coakley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Coakley’s motion to vacate all orders preventing him from filing a § 2255 motion, deny a certificate of- 3 - 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
### §460q–6. State jurisdiction

Nothing in this subchapter shall deprive any State or political subdivision thereof of its right to exercise civil and criminal jurisdiction within the recreation area or of its right to tax persons, corporations, franchises, or property, including mineral or other interests, in or on lands or waters within the recreation area.

(Pub. L. 89–336, §7, Nov. 8, 1965, 79 Stat. 1299.)
#### Michael G. HAMILTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Lawrence MACK, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 01-4092.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

May 7, 2002.

Before MERRITT, SUHRHEINRICH, and GILMAN, Circuit Judges.

*ORDER*

Michael G. Hamilton appeals a district court judgment that denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(1), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously *212agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

Following a jury trial in the Clark County, Ohio, Court of Common Pleas in 1991, Hamilton was convicted of rape, abduction, gross sexual imposition, and assault and was sentenced to concurrent terms of 5 to 25 years of imprisonment, 2 to 10 years of imprisonment, *Ch*years of imprisonment, and 6 months of imprisonment, respectively. The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions on direct appeal, and Hamilton did not appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court. Next, Hamilton filed a petition for post-conviction relief in the trial court in 1992, which the trial court dismissed. However, the Ohio Court of Appeals reversed the decision in part and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. After Hamilton filed a supplemental post-conviction petition, the trial court conducted a hearing regarding Hamilton’s claims for relief. The trial court denied the petition, and the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. The Ohio Supreme Court dismissed Hamilton’s appeal for lack of a substantial constitutional question.

Thereafter, Hamilton filed his federal habeas petition asserting as grounds for relief that the prosecution failed to disclose to the defense exculpatory evidence in its possession. Respondent filed a return of writ, and Hamilton filed a traverse. The magistrate judge recommended that the petition be denied as meritless, and Hamilton filed objections. The magistrate judge issued a supplemental recommendation, and Hamilton again filed objections. The magistrate judge issued a second supplemental recommendation, and Hamilton once again filed objections. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissed the petition as meritless. Hamilton filed a timely notice of appeal, and the district court granted Hamilton a certificate of appealability. On appeal, Hamilton essentially reiterates his contention that habeas corpus relief is warranted because the prosecution failed to disclose to the defense exculpatory evidence in its possession.

Upon de novo review, *see Clemmons v. Sowders,*34 F.3d 352, 354 (6th Cir.1994); *Carter v. Sowders,*5 F.3d 975, 978 (6th Cir.1993), we affirm the judgment for the reasons stated by the district court. Essentially, the state court of appeals rejected Hamilton’s claim that the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence in a decision that is not unreasonable. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); *Williams v.*Taylor; 529 U.S. 362, 412-13, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000).

For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s judgment is affirmed. *See*Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                              ADZONE RESEARCH, INC.
                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 AdZone Research, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Charles Cardona, Chief
Executive  Officer,  Principal  Accounting  Officer and Director of the Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.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.

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to AdZone Research,  Inc. and will be retained by AdZone Research, Inc.
and  furnished  to the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  or its staff upon
request.


Date: February 17, 2006


/s/ Charles Cardona
----------------------------------------
Charles Cardona
CEO and Principal Accounting Officer


                                       40
#### Batavia and New York Woodworking Company, Respondent, v. Thomas T. Hopper, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concurred.
FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
                             1997 STOCK OPTION PLAN

         WHEREAS,  Safety-Kleen Corp. (the "Company") has previously established
the Stock Option Plan effective July 9, 1997 (the "Plan") for the benefit of the
employees of the Company.

         WHEREAS,  the Plan is intended to advance the  interests of the Company
and its  subsidiaries  by  encouraging  stock  ownership by key employees of the
Company and its  subsidiaries  as a means to attract,  motivate  and retain such
employees;

         WHEREAS, the Plan was approved by the Board of Directors of the Company
(the "Board") on July 9, 1997;

         WHEREAS,  the Plan was approved by the  shareholders  of the Company on
November 25, 1997;

         WHEREAS,  the Plan  authorized  the Human  Resources  and  Compensation
Committee  of the Board (the  "HRCC") to grant  options for the  purchase of not
more than 1,500,000  shares of Company common stock (the "Shares")  (taking into
account the one for four reverse stock split) in the aggregate; and

         WHEREAS,  the Board, by unanimous  resolution at its regular  quarterly
meeting on October 5, 1999, and the  shareholders of the Company,  at its annual
meeting on November 30, 1999,  approved an amendment to the Plan  increasing the
number of Shares which may be issued under the Plan by an  additional  1,000,000
to authorize additional Shares to be granted pursuant to the Plan.

      NOW THEREFORE, the Plan is amended as set forth below.

I.    SHARES SUBJECT TO THE PLAN

      Section 3 of the Plan shall be amended and restated to read as follows:

      SHARES SUBJECT TO THE PLAN

      The HRCC may grant options  ("Options")  for the purchase of not more than
2,500,000  Common  Shares  ("Shares")  $1.00 par value of LESI in the  aggregate
subject to  adjustments  as provided in paragraph 5 hereof;  provided,  however,
that each grant of an option  hereunder  to any person who is an officer of LESI
for purposes of Section 16 of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,  as amended
(an  "Officer"),  shall be approved by the Board of  Directors  of LESI.  If any
Option  granted  to a person  eligible  to be  granted  Options  under  the Plan
("Participant")  lapses or is  otherwise  terminated,  such Shares shall then be
again available for the grant of Options hereunder.  Such Shares may be treasury
Shares or authorized but unissued Shares.

II.   EFFECTIVE DATE OF FIRST AMENDMENT

      This First Amendment to the Plan shall be effective and shall be deemed to
have been adopted on November 30, 1999 upon Shareholder approval.

III.  CONTINUING EFFECTS

      Except as  expressly  amended  hereby,  the Plan shall  continue to be and
shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 12.2

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Yoshiki Yagi, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Hitachi, Ltd.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

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

4. The company's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company 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 company, including its
   consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
   entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
   prepared;

     (b) [Reserved]

     (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company's disclosure controls and
   procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
   effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of a date within
   90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report; and

     (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the company's internal control
   over financial reporting that occurred subsequent to the date of our most
   recent evaluation that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
   materially affect, the company's internal control over financial reporting;
   and

5. The company's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
company's auditors and the audit committee of the company's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
   operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
   likely to adversely affect the company's ability to record, process,
   summarize and report financial information; and

     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
   employees who have a significant role in the company's internal control over
   financial reporting.


Date: September 30, 2003

                                  /s/ Yoshiki Yagi
                                  ----------------------------------------------
                                  Yoshiki Yagi
                                  Executive Vice President and Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. ss.1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Solely for the purposes of complying with, and the extent required by 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies, in his capacity as the Chief Financial Officer of BlastGard International, Inc., that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of the company on Form
10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005, fully complies with the requirements 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 companys financial condition and results of operations.



November 9, 2005



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|/s/ Michael J. Gordon                     
|Michael J. Gordon, Chief Financial Officer
§ 804.5 Audit and public inspection. ( a ) Records regarding the acceptance and use of gifts shall be made available for Federal Government audit.
( b ) Public inspection of records regarding the acceptance and use of gifts shall be afforded through Freedom of Information Act requests (*see* 28 CFR part 802).
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44523

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff

- Respondent

,

v.

TYLER WILLIAM BRADSHAW

,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 519

Filed: July 17, 2017

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin

Falls County. Hon. G. Richard Bevan , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of eight years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, for attempted strangulation, affirmed

.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Reed P. Anderson , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Bo ise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Tyler William Bradshaw was found guilty of attempted stra n gulation

. Idaho Code § 18

-

923

. The district court sentenced Bradshaw to a unified term of eight years with three years

determinate and retained jurisdiction

. After the period of retained jurisdiction, the district court

placed Bradshaw on probation for three years. Bradshaw appeals asserting that the district court

abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence

. Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

-2 15 (C t. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. Sta te v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Bradshaw ’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
#### § 636.101 What does this part do?

This part describes the FHWA's policies and procedures for approving design-build projects financed under title 23, United States Code (U.S.C.). This part satisfies the requirement of section 1307(c) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), enacted on June 9, 1998. The contracting procedures of this part apply to all design-build project funded under title 23, U.S.C.
```

[Federal Register: March 18, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 52)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 13049-13050]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18mr10-22]                         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0049; Airspace Docket No. 08-AWA-1]
RIN 2120-AA66

 
Proposed Modification of Class B Airspace; Charlotte, NC

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action provides the graphic chart for the proposed rule 
published in the Federal Register of March 3, 2010, regarding the 
modification of Class B airspace, Charlotte, NC. This correction adds 
the chart that was inadvertently omitted from the NPRM.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 3, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Airspace and Rules 
Group, Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM, Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 
telephone: (202) 267-8783.

Correction

    In proposed rule FR Doc. 2010-4377, beginning on page 9538 in the 
issue of March 3, 2010, make the following correction: On page 9544 in 
the first column, add the attached graphic chart before the Issue Date 
line.

[[Page 13050]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18MR10.004


    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 9, 2010.
Edith V. Parish,
Manager, Airspace and Rules Group.
[FR Doc. 2010-5879 Filed 3-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
**EXHIBIT 31.1**CERTIFICATIONI, Kurt R. Moore, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Ablest Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand 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 controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;andc) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     */s/ Kurt R. Moore*     Kurt R. Moore