alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Charles Andre McCOULLOUGH, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-7374.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 28, 2006.

Decided: July 19, 2006.

Charles Andre McCoullough, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

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

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Charles Andre McCoullough appeals the district court’s order denying reconsideration of its decision to reduce McCoullough’s 192-month sentence to 132 months, pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b).

“[AJppeals from rulings on Rule 35(b) motions are governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3742____” *United States v. Hartwell,*448 F.3d 707, 712 (4th Cir.2006). Section 3742 allows the appeal of an “otherwise final sentence if the sentence was imposed in violation of law.” 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(1) (2000). Thus, unless the sentence was imposed in violation of law, the district court’s ruling on the Rule 35 motion is not appealable. *Hartwell,*448 F.3d at 713; *United States v. Hill,*70 F.3d 321, 324 (4th Cir.1995).

McCoullough’s challenge to the district court’s order stems from his claim that a conflict of interest existed between himself and his court-appointed attorney, Michael Meetze. McCoullough claims Meetze failed to advocate for the reduction in sentence he desired — at minimum, a 75% reduction — because McCoullough had filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, alleging Meetze was ineffective. Because McCoullough fails to identify any error of law committed by the district court in failing to reduce his sentence to a greater extent than it did, this claim is not appealable.

To the extent that McCoullough is attempting to argue he was denied the effective assistance of counsel based on the purported conflict of interest, we note that there is no constitutional right to counsel at a Rule 35 hearing. *United States v. Taylor,*414 F.3d 528, 536 (4th Cir.2005). Absent a constitutional right to counsel, an ineffective assistance claim will not he. *Rouse v. Lee,*339 F.3d 238, 250 (4th Cir. 2003).

*220Accordingly, we dismiss McCoullough’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.*
### §1067. Findings

Congress makes the following findings:

(1) It is incumbent on the Federal Government to support the technological and economic competitiveness of the United States by improving and expanding the scientific and technological capacity of the United States. More and better prepared scientists, engineers, and technical experts are needed to improve and expand such capacity.

(2) As the Nation's population becomes more diverse, it is important that the educational and training needs of all Americans are met. Underrepresentation of minorities in science and technological fields diminishes our Nation's competitiveness by impairing the quantity of well prepared scientists, engineers, and technical experts in these fields.

(3) Despite significant limitations in resources, minority institutions provide an important educational opportunity for minority students, particularly in science and engineering fields. Aid to minority institutions is a good way to address the underrepresentation of minorities in science and technological fields.

(4) There is a strong Federal interest in improving science and engineering programs at minority institutions as such programs lag behind in program offerings and in student enrollment compared to such programs at other institutions of higher education.

(Pub. L. 89–329, title III, §350, as added Pub. L. 105–244, title III, §307(a), Oct. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1647.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 1067, Pub. L. 89–329, title III, §352, as added Pub. L. 99–498, title III, §301(a), Oct. 17, 1986, 100 Stat. 1304, and amended, which related to waiver authority and reporting requirement, was renumbered section 392 of Pub. L. 89–329 by Pub. L. 105–244, title III, §301(a)(2), Oct. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1636, and transferred to section 1068a of this title.

Another prior section 1067, Pub. L. 89–329, title III, §342, as added Pub. L. 96–374, title III, §301, Oct. 3, 1980, 94 Stat. 1398, set waiver authority and reporting requirements for this part, prior to the general amendment of this subchapter by Pub. L. 99–498.

Another prior section 1067, Pub. L. 89–329, title IV, §407, Nov. 8, 1965, 79 Stat. 1234; Pub. L. 90–575, title I, §§101(b)(2), 103, 104, Oct. 16, 1968, 82 Stat. 1017, 1018, related to agreements with institutions, required provisions and use of funds as additional Federal capital contribution for student loan fund, prior to the general amendment of part A of subchapter IV of this chapter by Pub. L. 92–318, title I, §131(b)(1), June 23, 1972, 86 Stat. 247.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1998, except as otherwise provided in Pub. L. 105–244, see section 3 of Pub. L. 105–244, set out as an Effective Date of 1998 Amendment note under section 1001 of this title.
[KPMG LETTERHEAD]
KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
2400 First Indiana Plaza
135 North Pennsylvania Street
Indianapolis, IN  46204-2452



The Board of Directors
First Indiana Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement
(No. 33-64851) on Form S-8 of First Indiana Corporation of our report dated
January 20, 1998, except note 17, which is as of January 22, 1998, relating
to the consolidated balance sheets of First Indiana Corporation as of
December 31, 1997 and 1996, and the related consolidated statements
of earnings, shareholders' equity, and cash flows for each of
the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1997, which report
appears in the December 31, 1997 annual report on Form 10-K of First
Indiana Corporation.

/s/KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
March 25, 1998

Member Firm of KPMG International

<PAGE> (10k page 233)
###### Editorial Note on Part 40

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear by T.D. ATF-460, 66 FR 39094-39096, July 27, 2001; T.D. ATF-464, 66 FR 43479, Aug. 20, 2001; and T.D. TTB-91, 76 FR 5479, Feb. 1, 2011.

#### § 40.404 Amount of bond.

The amount of the bond of a manufacturer of cigarette papers and tubes shall be not less than the maximum amount of the tax liability on the cigarette papers and tubes manufactured in the factory, received without payment of tax from other factories, and released without payment of tax from customs custody as provided in § 40.452, during any month. In the case of a manufacturer commencing business, the production, receipts from other factories, and releases from customs custody, without payment of tax, shall be estimated for the purpose of this section. The amount of any such bond (or the total amount where strengthening bonds are filed) shall not exceed $20,000, nor be less than $1,000.

(72 Stat. 1421; 26 U.S.C. 5711)
EXHIBIT 21

X-RITE, INCORPORATED

LIST OF CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES



|1. | X-Rite International, Inc.
|-- | --------------------------



|2. | X-Rite Holdings, Incorporated
|-- | -----------------------------



|3. | X-Rite GmbH
|-- | -----------



|4. | X-Rite Asia Pacific Limited
|-- | ---------------------------



|5. | X-Rite Ltd.
|-- | -----------



|6. | X-Rite MA, Incorporated
|-- | -----------------------



|7. | OTP, Incorporated
|-- | -----------------



|8. | Labsphere, Inc. (sold on February 7, 2007)
|-- | ------------------------------------------



|9. | X-Rite Méditerranée SARL
|-- | ------------------------



|10. | X-Rite Global, Incorporated.
|--- | ----------------------------



|11. | XR Ventures, LLC
|--- | ----------------



|12. | X-Rite Europe, B.V.
|--- | -------------------



|13. | X-Rite, (Shanghai) International Trading Co. Ltd.
|--- | -------------------------------------------------



|14. | Monaco Acquisition Company
|--- | --------------------------



|15. | X-Rite, KK
|--- | ----------



|16. | X-Rite, Italy Srl.
|--- | ------------------



|17. | X-Rite Asia Pacific PTE
|--- | -----------------------



|18. | Labsphere Ltd. (sold on February 7, 2007)
|--- | -----------------------------------------



|19. | Amazys Holding AG
|--- | -----------------



|20. | Amazys Beteilgungen AG
|--- | ----------------------



|21. | Gretag Macbeth AG
|--- | -----------------



|22. | Gretag Macbeth Company Ltd.
|--- | ---------------------------



|23. | Gretag Macbeth GmbH
|--- | -------------------



|24. | Gretag Macbeth UK Ltd.
|--- | ----------------------



|25. | Viptronic GmbH
|--- | --------------



|26. | Gretag Macbeth LLC
|--- | ------------------



|27. | Sequel Imaging LLC
|--- | ------------------



|28. | Graphic Intelligence Agency LLC
|--- | -------------------------------



|29. | LOGO Betiligungsgesellschft GmbH
|--- | --------------------------------



|30. | LOGO Komuniaktions Drucktechnik GmbH &Co.
|--- | -----------------------------------------



|31. | Gretag Macbeth Italy Srl
|--- | ------------------------
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gilberto ESTRADA SANCHEZ, also known as Gilberto Estrada-Sanchez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-40838.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 23, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Gilberto Estrada Sanchez (Estrada) appeals his conviction and the 77-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to illegal reentry following deportation and after having been convicted of an aggravated felony. Estrada’s constitutional *612challenge to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Estrada contends that *Almendarez-Torres*was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule *Almendarez-Torres*in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that *Almendarez-Torres*remains binding. *See United States v. Garza-Lopez,*410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Estrada properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of *Almendarez-Torres*and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
**EXHIBIT 12(c)**

 

#### **PACCARand Subsidiaries**

#### ** **

**COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES**

 

**PURSUANT TO SEC REPORTING REQUIREMENTS**

(Millions of Dollars)

 
| ** **                                         | ** ** | Nine Months Ended | ** **  |
|----------------------------------------------------|------------|-----------------------------|-------------|
| ** **                                         | ** ** | September 30           | ** **  |
| ** **                                         | ** ** | **2008**                    | ** **  | 2007 | ** ** |
|                                               |       |                        |        |   |   |
| FIXED CHARGES                                      |       |                        |        |   |   |
| Interest expense  - PACCAR and Subsidiaries (1)    | ** ** | **$**                       | **299.5**   | ** ** | $ | 282.7 |   |
| Portion of  rentals deemed interest                |       | **13.1**                    |        | 13.0 |   |
|                                               |       | ** **                  |        |   |   |
| TOTAL FIXED  CHARGES                               | ** ** | **$**                       | **312.6**   | ** ** | $ | 295.7 |   |
|                                               | ** ** | ** **                  | ** **  |   |   |
| EARNINGS                                           |       | ** **                  |        |   |   |
| Income before  taxes - PACCAR and Subsidiaries (2) | ** ** | **$**                       | **1,298.2** | ** ** | $ | 1,392.8 |   |
| Fixed charges                                      |       | **312.6**                   |        | 295.7 |   |
|                                               |       | ** **                  |        |   |   |
| EARNINGS AS  DEFINED                               | ** ** | **$**                       | **1,610.8** | ** ** | $ | 1,688.5 |   |
|                                               | ** ** | ** **                  | ** **  |   |   |
| RATIO OF  EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                |       | **5.15X**                   |        | 5.71X |   |

 

(1)  Exclusiveof interest, if any, paid to PACCAR.

 

(2)  Includesbefore tax earnings of wholly owned subsidiaries.

 

----
No. 21601.

#### Clifford Clyde Stewart *v.*Harry C. Tinsley, Warden of Colorado State Penitentiary.

(403 P.2d 220)

Decided June 21, 1965.

Plaintiff in error, pro se.

Duke W. Dunbar, Attorney General, Frank E. Hickey, Deputy, John E. Bush, Assistant, for defendant in error.

*En Banc.*

*442Mr. Justice Day

delivered the opinion of the Court.

We will refer to plaintiff in error as petitioner.

Petitioner filed for writ of habeas corpus in the district court, Pueblo, alleging that a plea of guilty entered by him to the charge of robbery was coerced; that he was not afforded benefit of counsel; and that' the court, in accepting his tendered plea of guilty, did not advise him of the sentence provided by law for the crime involved. The petition for the writ was denied without a hearing, and it is to this action of the court that he diiects this writ of error.

We hold that petitioner raised no question properly justiciable in habeas corpus. *Stilley v. Tinsley,*153 Colo. 66, 385 P.2d 677; *Specht v. Tinsley,*153 Colo. 235, 385 P.2d 423; *Titmus v. Tinsley,*153 Colo. 96, 384 P.2d 728.

It appears on the face of the petition that petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief, so it was proper for the court to deny it summarily. *Minor v. People,*154 Colo. 249, 389 P.2d 850; *Titmus v. Tinsley, supra.*

The allegations of the petition go to the validity of petitioner’s plea of guilty and are properly to be brought under Rule 35(b), Colo. R. Crim. P. *Vanderhoof v. People,*152 Colo. 147, 380 P.2d 903; *Martinez v. People,*152 Colo. 521, 382 P.2d 990.

The judgment is affirmed.
###### Editorial Note on Part 479

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 479 appear by T.D. ATF-487, 68 FR 3752, Jan. 24, 2003.

#### § 479.22 Right of entry and examination.

Any ATF officer or employee of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives duly authorized to perform any function relating to the administration or enforcement of this part may enter during business hours the premises (including places of storage) of any importer or manufacturer of or dealer in firearms, to examine any books, papers, or records required to be kept pursuant to this part, and any firearms kept by such importer, manufacturer or dealer on such premises, and may require the production of any books, papers, or records necessary to determine any liability for tax under 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53, or the observance of 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53, and this part.

[36 FR 14256, Aug. 3, 1971. Redesignated at 40 FR 16835, Apr. 15, 1975, and amended by T.D. ATF-48, 44 FR 55842, Sept. 28, 1979; ATF 2013R-9F, 79 FR 46693, Aug. 11, 2014]
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY ELEV

 123.58

 123.33

 123.50

 123.82

 124.26

 124.86

 124.09

 123.76

 123.76

 123.72

 123.34

 123.51

 123.35

 123.24

 123.20

 123.53

 123.85

 123.80

 124.10

 124.41

 124.35

 124.13

 124.35

 123.74

 123.47

 123.84

 123.96

 123.41

 123.27

 123.22

 123.16

 8,064

 7,946

 8,026

 8,176

 8,391

 8,691

 8,306

 8,148

 8,148

 8,129

 7,951

 8,031

 7,956

 7,904

 7,885

 8,040

 8,191

 8,167

 8,311

 8,466

 8,436

 8,326

 8,436

 8,139

 8,012

 8,186

 8,242

 7,984

 7,918

 7,894

 7,866

STORAGE

-145

-118

+80

+150

+215

+300

-385

-158

+0

-19

-178

+80

-75

-52

-19

+155

+151

-24

+144

+155

-30

-110

+110

-297

-127

+174

+56

-258

-66

-24

-28

CHANGE

1,754

1,753

1,840

1,831

1,867

1,905

1,604

1,689

1,767

1,767

1,633

1,764

1,669

1,704

1,715

1,808

1,805

1,716

1,773

1,814

1,763

1,719

1,874

1,713

1,725

1,888

1,816

1,617

1,718

1,727

1,717

INFLOW

 1,727

 1,711

 1,705

 1,664

 1,668

 1,666

 1,727

 1,708

 1,692

 1,691

 1,637

 1,638

 1,411

 1,644

 1,639

 1,644

 1,643

 1,642

 1,615

 1,651

 1,692

 1,689

 1,734

 711

 270

 270

 702

 1,662

 1,666

 1,653

 1,641

POWER

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 210

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 1,067

 1,434

 1,445

 1,001

 0

 0

 0

 4

SPILL

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

HATCHERY

 0

 1

 0

 1

 1

 1

 0

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 0

 0

 1

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 1

 1

C.F.S.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JANUARY 2012 LAKE NATOMA DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: February 1, 2012

IN LAKE

EVAP

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS -343 54,455 46,813 5,161 1,860 18

ACRE-FEET -343 108,011 92,854 10,237 3,689 36

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

SUMMARY

RELEASES (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 92,854

SPILL 10,237

FOLSOM SOUTH CANAL

HATCHERY

 1,541

 3,689

 8,209

FOLSOM

SOUTH 

CANAL

 40

 40

 35

 30

 30

 27

 11

 0

 14

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 25

 777

 1,541

(1)

(1) INCHES OF EVAPORATION TAKEN FROM FOLSOM PAN.

RELEASES (ACRE-FEET)

TOTAL 108,321
EXHIBIT 31.2
                                                                    ------------

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                    SS.302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, James F. Parslow, Chief Financial Officer of Spire Corporation (the
"Company"), certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Company.

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 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; and

     b)   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 the end
          of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation.

5.   The Company's other certifying officer 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.


Dated: August 15, 2005                       By: /s/ James F. Parslow
                                                 -------------------------
                                                 James F. Parslow
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5580 

To codify certain rules issued by the Secretary of the Interior and the 

Secretary of Commerce relating to endangered species and threatened 

species, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 10, 2020 

Mr. GOSAR (for himself, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. CRAWFORD, Mr. GIANFORTE, 

and Mr. NEWHOUSE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To codify certain rules issued by the Secretary of the Interior 

and the Secretary of Commerce relating to endangered 

species and threatened species, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Bring ESA Into the 

5 21st Century Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5580 IH

1 SEC. 2. CODIFICATION OF REGULATIONS RELATING TO EN2 DANGERED SPECIES AND THREATENED SPE3 CIES INTERAGENCY COOPERATION. 

4 The amendments to part 402 of title 50, Code of Fed5 eral Regulations, made by the final rule promulgated by 

6 the Secretary of the Interior entitled ‘‘Endangered 

7 Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Regulations for Inter8 agency Cooperation’’ and published August 27, 2019 (84 

9 Fed. Reg. 44976), shall have the force and effect of law. 

10 SEC. 3. CODIFICATION OF REGULATIONS RELATING TO EN11 DANGERED SPECIES AND THREATENED SPE12 CIES LISTING AND CRITICAL HABITAT DES13 IGNATION. 

14 The amendments to part 424 of title 50, Code of Fed15 eral Regulations, made by the final rule promulgated by 

16 the Secretary of the Interior entitled ‘‘Endangered 

17 Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Regulations for Listing 

18 Species and Designating Critical Habitat’’ and published 

19 August 27, 2019 (84 Fed. Reg. 45020), shall have the 

20 force and effect of law. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS