alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 03-3242

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Cesar Antonio Cortez-Rocha, * Western District of Arkansas. * Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________ Submitted: September 7, 2004 Filed: September 15, 2004

___________ Before MURPHY, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Cesar Antonio Cortez-Rocha (Cortez) pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation following an aggravated-felony conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). The district court 1 sentenced him to 77 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release. On appeal, Cortez’s counsel has moved to withdraw under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and has filed a brief in which he argues that (1) the sentence imposed for Cortez’s 2001 Arkansas conviction for criminal impersonation should not have been counted in his criminal history score,-2- (2) the district court should have departed downward because Cortez’s criminal history score was overstated, and (3) trial counsel was ineffective. After careful review, we find that counsel’s arguments lack merit. Cortez has not shown plain error in the district court’s inclusion of his criminal-impersonation sentence in his criminal history score: the sentence included 37 days in jail, and Cortez has not shown that the jail time was imposed for any reason other than the criminal conviction or for his related contempt of court. SeeUnited States v. Evans , 285 F.3d 664, 674 (8th Cir. 2002) (standard of review), cert. denied , 537 U.S. 1196 (2003); U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c)(1) (sentences for certain offenses, including giving false information to police officer and contempt of court, and those similar to them, do not count in criminal history score unless defendant receives at least 1 year probation or 30 days imprisonment, or unless such prior offense is similar to instant offense). Further, Cortez waived his downward-departure argument by failing to move for departure in the district court, see United States v. Murphy , 248 F.3d 777, 779-80 (8th Cir. 2001), and Cortez’s ineffective-assistance claim would be more properly raised in postconviction proceedings, see United States v. Smith , Nos. 03-2862, 03-3494, 2004 WL 1737335, at *1 (8th Cir. Aug. 4, 2004). Following our independent review, see Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________
**EXHIBIT 13.2**

 

**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 this Annual Report of Levon Resources Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"). I, Nigel Kirkwood, Principal 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

 

|   | (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: June 25, 2015 | By:    | */s/ Nigel Kirkwood*        |   |
|                |   | Nigel Kirkwood              |   |
|                |   | Principal Financial Officer |   |

  

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is not being filed as part of the annual report or as a separate disclosure document.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                              68
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   42,078
<ALLOWANCES>                                       761
<INVENTORY>                                     35,074
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                84,879
<PP&E>                                          18,701
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,968
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 128,824
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,863
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           142
<OTHER-SE>                                      54,028
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   128,824
<SALES>                                         57,649
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                           44,308
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,569
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,192
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,580
<INCOME-TAX>                                       759
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                821
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       821
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.06
        


</TABLE>
### **CHAPTER 11—HONEYBEES**

Sec.
281.
Honeybee importation.
282.
Punishment for unlawful importation.
283.
Propagation of stock and release of germ plasm.
284.
Eradication and control of undesirable species and subspecies.
285.
Uses of funds.
286.
Authorization of appropriations.
<Page>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                               LANCER CORPORATION
                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

UNITED STATES:
Lancer Capital Corporation
San Antonio, Texas

Lancer International Sales, Inc.
San Antonio, Texas

Lancer Investment Corporation
Wilmington, Delaware

Lan-Leasing, Inc.
San Antonio, Texas

Lancer Partnership, Ltd.
San Antonio, Texas

Lancer Ice Link, LLC
San Antonio, Texas

Advanced Beverage Solutions, LLC
Schaumburg, Illinois

MEXICO:
Industrias Lancermex, S.A. de C.V.
Piedras Negras, Coahuila, Mexico

Lancer de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.
Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico

Servicios Lancermex, S.A. de C.V.
Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico

BRAZIL:
Lancer do Brasil, Industria e Comercio Ltda.
Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil

ECUADOR
Ecualancer S.A.
Quito, Ecuador

EUROPE:
Lancer Europe, S.A.
Brussels, Belgium

OOO Lancer Sales Company
Moscow, Russia

AUSTRALIA:
Lancer Pacific, Pty. Ltd.
Lancer Pacific Industies, Pty. Ltd.
Beverly, South Australia, Australia

Lancer Pacific, Ltd.
Auckland, New Zealand
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000766659
<NAME>                        ENERGROUP TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                          0
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   0
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                0
<PP&E>                          0
<DEPRECIATION>                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           2,818
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        3,642
<OTHER-SE>                     (6,460)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    0
<SALES>                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                0
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                2,492
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                (2,492)
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                   (2,492)
<EPS-BASIC>                    (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                  (0.01)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6677

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

KUNTA KENTA REDD, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Wilmington. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (7:08-cr-00043-D-1) 

Submitted: August 20, 2019 Decided: August 23, 2019

Before FLOYD and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Kunta Kenta Redd, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Kunta Kenta Redd seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for reduction of sentence. We dismiss the appeal. 

In criminal cases, a defendant must file his notice of appeal within 14 days after the 

entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i); see United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 

233, 235 n.* (4th Cir. 2010) (“[Section] 3582 motions . . . are criminal in nature.”). 

With or without a motion, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause, the district 

court may grant an extension of up to 30 days to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 

4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes, 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985). The district court 

entered its order denying Redd’s § 3582(c)(2) motion on August 8, 2014. Redd’s notice 

of appeal was filed on April 26, 2019.*

 

Redd’s appeal notice is thus untimely, and he has not obtained an extension of the 

appeal period. Further, although the appeal period in a criminal case is not a jurisdictional 

provision, but, rather, a claim-processing rule, Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 209-13

(2007); United States v. Urutyan, 564 F.3d 679, 685 (4th Cir. 2009), we conclude that, 

because an intervening judgment already has relied on the district court’s denial order, 

extraordinary circumstances meriting sua sponte dismissal of the appeal are present. 

See United States v. Oliver, 878 F.3d 120, 122, 129 (4th Cir. 2017). 

 * For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of 

appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for 

mailing to the district court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 

(1988). 
3

We therefore dismiss the appeal. We deny Redd’s motions to suspend counsel’s 

bar license and for partial transcripts of the proceedings of his co-defendants and dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
The State of TexasAppellee/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

April 28, 2015

N o. 04

- 14

- 00878

- CR

Matt hew Douglas HAYES

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013CR10841W Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellant, Matthew Hayes, entered into a plea agreement in two separate cause numbers whereby he pled guilty to two charges of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon under each cause number (for a total of four counts). Hayes subsequently perfected two separate appeals under each of the two cause numbers : 04

- 14

- 878

- CR (878 appeal) and 04

- 14

- 879

- CR (879 appeal)

. On April 1, 2015, the State file d a notice and motion for correction in both appeals , in which it assert ed Hayes waived his right to appeal in th e 878 appeal as part of his plea bargain

. The State asserted that although the trial court admonished Hayes regarding waiver of his right to

a ppeal

, the form signed by the trial court is ambiguous, in that the trial court’s marking appears in the space between that granting permission to appeal and that stating there is no right to appeal . Th e State r equest ed this court obtain a corrected certi fication from the trial court indicating a ppellant has no right to appeal in the 878 appeal

. Appellant respon ded to the S tate’s motion on A pril 20, 2015 . In his response, appellant asserts the trial court granted permission to appeal in the 879 appeal, a nd thereby intended to and did grant permission to appeal in the 878 appeal as well

. Review of the Clerk’s Record in the 878 appeal reveals t he trial court’s form titled “Certification of Defendant’s Right to Appeal” is ambiguous as to Cause Number 2013

- CR

10841W

. As the State asserts, t his Court cannot determine which box the trial court intended to mark.For this reason, the State’s Motion for Correction and Motion to Abate filed in both appeals, the 878 appeal and the 879 appeal is GRANTED

. T he trial court is ORDERED to file a supplemental clerk = s record in this court in the 878 appeal , no later than May 12 , 2015 , which shall include a corrected “Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal” as to Cause Number 2013

- CR

- 10841W and which clearly indicates whether the trial court grants Hayes permission to appeal or whether there is no right to appeal

. All deadlines in the 878 appeal and the 879 appeal are abated until the supplemental clerk’s record is received in the 878 appeal

.

_________________________________ Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 28th day of April, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
#### § 1605.22 Composition and appointment of district appeal boards.

The Director of Selective Service will prescribe the number of members for the district appeal boards. The President shall appoint members of district appeal boards from among citizens of the United States who are residents of the area for which the respective boards have jurisdiction. The Director of Selective Service shall furnish necessary personnel, suitable office space, facilities and services to support each district appeal board.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-12-00478-CV

PARKDALE SHOPPING CENTER

v.

DOLGENCORP OF TEXAS, INC. 

On Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 2 of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 09-61455-2

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the trial court’s judgment should be set aside without regards to 

the merits and the cause remanded to the trial court for rendition of judgment in 

accordance with the agreements. The Court orders the judgment SET ASIDE and the 

case is REMANDED. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against the party incurring 

same.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

November 14, 2013
#### In the Matter of the Town of Oyster Bay, Respondent-Appellant, Relative to Acquiring Title to Real Property for Park Purposes at Syosset in the Vicinity of Jericho Turnpike and South Woods Road in the Unincorporated Area of the Town of Oyster Bay. Executors of Ailsa M. Bruce, Deceased, Appellants-Respondents.

In a condemnation proceeding, the parties cross-appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated October 20, 1977, which, after a nonjury trial, *inter alia,*directed that the trial be reopened for the taking of additional evidence as to the value of the property under an independent valuation basis selected by the court. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements, on the opinion of Mr. Justice Farley at Special Term. Gulotta, J. P., Cohalan, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
Exhibit
4.4





[Rurban
Financial Corp. Letterhead]





March 17,
2010





Securities
and Exchange Commission


100 F
Street, NE


Washington,
D.C. 20549





Re:
              Rurban
      Financial Corp. – Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
      ended
                December
      31, 2009





Ladies
and Gentlemen:





Rurban Financial Corp., an Ohio
corporation (“Rurban”), is today filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commision (the “SEC”) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Rurban for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2009 ( “Rurban’s 2009 Form 10-K”)





Pursuant to the instructions relating
to the Exhibits in Item 601(b)(4)(iii) of Regulation S-K, Rurban hereby agrees
to furnish to the SEC, upon request, copies of instruments and agreements
defining the rights of holders of long-term debt and of the long-term debt of
its consolidated subsidiaries, which are not being filed as exhibits to Rurban’s
2009 Form 10-K.  None of such long-term debt exceeds 10% of the total
assets of Rurban and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis.





Very
      truly yours,RURBAN
      FINANCIAL CORP./s/
      Duane L. SinnDuane
      L. SinnExecutive
      Vice President andChief
      Financial Officer
Appeal No. 76-413.

#### Lamba Tepic Investment Corporation *v.*Catherine K. Rowell.

*James J. McGair,*for plaintiff.

*John M. Mola, Alden C. Harrington, Rhode Island Legal Services, Inc.,*for defendant.

The plaintiff’s motion to affirm the judgment below pursuant to Rule 16(g) is denied.
§ 234.4 Trespassing. ( a ) Trespassing, entering, or remaining in or upon property not open to the public, except with the express invitation or consent of the person or persons having lawful control of the property, is prohibited. Failure to obey an order to leave under paragraph (b) of this section, or reentry upon property after being ordered to leave or not reenter under paragraph (b) of this section, is also prohibited.
( b ) Any person who violates a Department of Defense rule or regulation may be ordered to leave the Pentagon Reservation by an authorized person. A violator's reentry may also be prohibited.
To Whom it may concern,

My name is Brian Reubelt, I am the owner of Reubelt Photography. I am requesting a 333 exemption for flying my UAS for aerial cinematography for my business. I believe that this exemption would benefit the public eye because I will be able to provide my services to wedding clients, real estate clients, and independent films as well. This exemption will not effect the safety of the public. I would not be operating the UAS near any people or places that may cause harm to persons or property. I will uphold all safety regulations and follow all guidelines while operating the UAS. The aircraft I am requesting exemption for is a DJI Phantom 3. My certificate number is FA3WWYWLYE. Thank you. If you have any questions please contact me by email at breubelt93@gmail.com or by phone at 561-859-6204.
### §5508. Officer entitled to leave; effect on pay status

An officer in the executive branch and an officer of the government of the District of Columbia to whom subchapter I of chapter 63 of this title applies are not entitled to the pay of their offices solely because of their status as officers.

(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 477.)

| Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 5 U.S.C. 2061(c)(1) (last sentence). | July 2, 1953, ch. 178, §1 "(c)(1) (last sentence)", 67 Stat. 136. |

Statutes at Large

The words "including an officer of a corporation wholly owned or controlled by the United States" are omitted as unnecessary in view of the definition of "officer" in section 2104.

Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.
Exhibit 12.1



CERTIFICATIONS



I, David H. Brett, President and Chief Executive Officer of Cusac Gold Mines Ltd., certify that;



(1)

I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Cusac Gold Mines 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 Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



(4)

The registrants other certifying officers 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 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 consolidated 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 period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and



(1)

The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting, 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 and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting.



Date:  July 17, 2007





/s/ David Brett

By:     David H. Brett

Title:  President and Chief Executive Officer
#### § 1900.14 Fee estimates (pre-request option).

In order to avoid unanticipated or potentially large fees, a requester may submit a request for a fee estimate. The Agency will endeavor within twenty (20) business days to provide an accurate estimate, and, if a request is thereafter submitted, the Agency will not accrue or charge fees in excess of our estimate without the specific permission of the requester.