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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7418

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

REGINALD SAM BEALE, a/k/a Pootie,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (2:18-cr-00156-RGD-RJK-3; 2:20-

cv-00114-RGD)

Submitted: December 20, 2022 Decided: December 22, 2022

Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reginald Sam Beale, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7418 Doc: 12 Filed: 12/22/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Reginald Sam Beale seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. 

Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 

Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Beale has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. We 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

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7418 Doc: 12 Filed: 12/22/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch on Law Enforcement Responses to Opioid Overdoses (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -           Project Launch      

# Project Launch

Project LAUNCH is a grant program of the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) which seeks to promote the wellness of young children birth to age eight. Using a public health approach, Project LAUNCH focuses on improving the systems that serve young children and address their physical, emotional, social, cognitive and behavioral growth. The goal: for all children to reach physical, social, emotional, behavioral, and cognitive milestones.

http://projectlaunch.promoteprevent.org/
6101.17 Exhibits [Rule 17]. ( a ) *Marking exhibits.* Unless otherwise ordered, parties shall, to the fullest extent practicable, submit exhibits for inclusion in the appeal file before a hearing starts under Rule 20 (48 CFR 6101.20) or before the first brief is filed when a case is submitted on the written record under Rule 19 (48 CFR 6101.19). Parties shall mark any exhibits offered in evidence thereafter as sequential additions to the appeal file. Such exhibits shall become part of the appeal file if admitted as evidence.
( b ) *Copies.* The Board expects all document exhibits to be true, complete, and legible copies rather than originals. The Board may order a party to substitute a better copy or to make an original document available for inspection.
( c ) *Withdrawal.* The Board may allow a party to withdraw an exhibit from the appeal file and the record for decision on terms fair to the other party.
( d ) *Disposition.* Unless the Board advises the parties of another deadline, the Board may discard physical (non-electronic) exhibits in its possession 90 days after the time to appeal the Board's decision in the case expires.
##### 



Exhibit 12.2
 Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this amended annual report on Form 20-F/A of Grupo Aeroportuario del Sureste,
S.A.B. de C.V.;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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company and have:




---



##### 



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):
    2




---



##### 



/s/  Fernando Chico PardoFernando Chico PardoChief Executive Officer 3
Wyoming Nitrate Contribution to Gates of the Mountains Worst

site Year modelrun param N SReg PT AF MV Nat Area Total GAMO1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 WY 0.0065348 3.91E-05 0.0044826 0.0003652 0.0015174 0.0129391 Wyoming's 2002 Contribution (20% Worst) to Nitrate at Gates of the Mountains = 0.01 divided by 0.5, or 2% Best

site Year modelrun param N SReg PT AF MV Nat Area Total GAMO1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 22 WY 0.0013136 3.64E-05 0.0011727 0.00015 0.0005364 0.0032091 Wyoming's 2002 Contribution (20% Best) to Nitrate at Gat es of the Mountains = 0.003 divided by 0.8, or < 1%
#### 915.404-4-70-3 Documentation.

Determination of the profit or fee objective, in accordance with this subpart shall be fully documented. Since the profit objective is the contracting officer's pre-negotiation evaluation of a total profit allowance for the proposed contract, the amounts developed for each category of cost will probably change in the course of negotiation. Furthermore, the negotiated amounts will probably vary from the objective and from the pre-negotiation detailed application of the weighted guidelines technique to each element of the contractor's input to total performance. Since the profit objective is viewed as a whole rather than as its component parts, insignificant variations from the pre-negotiation profit objective, as a result of changes to the contractor's input to total performance, need not be documented in detail. Conversely, significant deviations from the profit objective necessary to reach a final agreement on profit or fee shall be explained in the price negotiation memorandum prepared in accordance with 48 CFR 15.406-3.

[63 FR 56851, Oct. 23, 1998, as amended at 76 FR 7693, Feb. 11, 2011]
#### Dependable Printed Circuit Corporation, Respondent, v. Mnemotron Corporation, Appellant.

In an action to recover a balance due under a contract for the sale of goods, in which a judgment had been entered “ dismissing the action with prejudice,” the defendant appeals from a later judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, entered January 24, 1964, which: (a) in effect, granted plaintiff’s motion to resettle the original judgment so as to strike therefrom the phrase “with prejudice” and to substitute therefor the phrase “without prejudice;” and (to) which resettled the original judgment accordingly. Resettled judgment reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements; plaintiff’s motion to resettle denied; and original judgment directed to be reinstated. In our opinion, the resettlement herein changed the judgment in a matter of substance, and the Special Term had no revisory power over the judgment to effect such a change (see *Herpe*v. *Herpe,*225 N. Y. 323). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### 927.206 Refund of royalties.
#### § 1.197 Comments by other parties.

Any party to a proceeding other than the applicant and agency counsel may file comments on an application within 30 days after it is served or on an answer within 15 days after it is served. A commenting party may not participate further in proceedings on the application, unless the adjudicative officer determines that the public interest requires such participation in order to permit full exploration of matters raised in the comments.
SS¥ - ISELECTRONIC RECORD

COA# 07-14-00203-CR

Hermilo Sanchez-Tapia v. The

STYLE: State of Texas

OFFENSE: DWI

COUNTY: Lubbock

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED TRIAL COURT: County Court at Law No 1

DATE:03/10/2015 Publish: NO TC CASE #: 2013-475,994

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Hermilo Sanchez-Tapia v. The State

STYLE: ofTexas CCA #:

APPELLANT^ Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

DATE: nVJU 1*01*

JUDGE: f&t. £(AAASs\^ PUBLISH:.

ss* -/s*

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED:

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

PC:

DNP:

MOTION FOR

ELECTRONIC RECORD
9904.407-40 Fundamental requirement. Standard costs may be used for estimating, accumulating, and reporting costs of direct material and direct labor only when all of the following criteria are met: ( a ) Standard costs are entered into the books of account.
( b ) Standard costs and related variances are appropriately accounted for at the level of the production unit.
( c ) Practices with respect to the setting and revising of standards, use of standard costs, and disposition of variances are stated in writing and are consistently followed.
EXHIBIT 99.3

Annual Certification  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18,
United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Tele2 AB (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The
annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2002 of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) and 15(d) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

|Dated: June 27, 2003 |  | /s/LARS-JOHAN JARNHEIMER
|-------------------- |  | ------------------------
|                     |  | Name:                   
|                     |  | Title:                  
|Dated: June 27, 2003 |  | /s/HÅKAN ZADLER         
|                     |  | Name:                   
|                     |  | Title:                  

The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of
title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 20-F or as a separate disclosure document.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Tele2 AB and will be retained by Tele2 AB and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

---

QuickLinks
#### William P. Pinna, Respondent, v Steve Davis, Appellant.

— In an action to enforce a North Carolina judgment awarding plaintiff damages for breach of contract, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered May 1, 1978, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, motion granted and complaint dismissed. The North Carolina judgment is void because defendant’s contacts with North Carolina were not sufficient to subject him to in personam jurisdiction in that State (see *International Shoe Co. v Washington,*326 US 310, 316). Defendant, a citizen and resident of New York, placed an advertisement in the December 1, 1975 issue of *Shotgun News,*offering his 1902 Luger Carbine for sale. Plaintiff, a citizen and resident of North Carolina, responding to that advertisement, telephoned New York and agreed to purchase the gun from defendant. Plaintiff sent a check to defendant in New York for $3,510 to cover the purchase price plus shipping costs, and defendant mailed the gun to North Carolina. After examining the gun in North Carolina, plaintiff claimed it was defective and commenced an action for breach of contract in Wake County, North Carolina. A default judgment was subsequently en*968tered in the District Court Division of the General Court of Justice, Wake County, North Carolina. Defendant’s contacts with North Carolina, consisting of the sale and shipment of a single item of merchandise to plaintiff in North Carolina, were so insubstantial that maintenance of the suit in that State did not comport with the requirements of due process (see *Erlanger Mills v Cohoes Fibre Mills,*239 F2d 502; *Golden Belt Mfg. Co. v Janler Plastic Mold Corp.,*281 F Supp 368, affd 391 F2d 266; *McKee Elec. Co. v Rauland-Borg Corp.,*20 NY2d 377, 381-382; cf. *Hardy v Pioneer Parachute Co.,*531 F2d 193). Damiani, J. P., Titone, Shapiro and Margett, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          13,061
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   38,491
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    107,091
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               162,859
<PP&E>                                          68,255
<DEPRECIATION>                                  38,020
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 202,074
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,709
<BONDS>                                         86,850
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,155
<OTHER-SE>                                      82,360
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   202,074
<SALES>                                        181,159
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               181,159
<CGS>                                          129,698
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  162,954
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,772
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,113
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,184
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,926
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,926
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.41


</TABLE>
#### 643.104-70 DOSAR contract clause.

The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 652.243-70, Notices, in all solicitations and contracts exceeding the micro-purchase threshold which are awarded and/or performed overseas.

[64 FR 43629, Aug. 11, 1999]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Christopher Rodriguez, Appellant.

[776 NYS2d 79]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperaran, J.), rendered April 29, 2002, convicting him of murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree (two counts), burglary in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the convictions of murder in the second degree, vacating the sentences imposed thereon, and dismissing those counts of the indictment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

*546The defendant correctly contends that his two convictions of murder in the second degree pursuant to Penal Law § 125.25 (1) and (3), respectively, were lesser-included offenses, and hence inclusory concurrent counts, of his conviction of murder in the first degree pursuant to Penal Law § 125.27 [1] [a] [vii] *(see*CPL 300.30 [4]). “When it is impossible to commit a particular crime without concomitantly committing, by the same conduct, another offense of lesser grade or degree, the latter is, with respect to the former, a ‘lesser included offense’ ” (CPL 1.20 [37]; *see People v Biggs,*1 NY3d 225, 230 [2003]; *People v Baglieri,*51 AD2d 587, 588 [1976]). It is impossible to violate Penal Law § 125.27 (1) (a) (vii) without also violating Penal Law § 125.25 (1) and (3) *(see People v Hildreth,*279 AD2d 791, 793 [2001]; *see generally People v Glover,*57 NY2d 61, 63-64 [1982]).

Moreover, contrary to the People’s argument, murder in the second degree is a crime of lesser “degree” than murder in the first degree because it “is a lower level of the same general *crime*classified by statute in degrees of seriousness,” and is distinguished from murder in the first degree only because of “the presence of additional elements” in the definition of the latter *(People v Wolf,*59 AD2d 547 [1977] ; *see People v Hildreth, supra; see also People v Flores,*42 AD2d 431, 434 [1973]). Murder in the second degree is also a crime of lesser “grade” than murder in the first degree because it is subject to a lesser penalty *(see People v Diaz,*65 AD2d 929 [1978]; *People v Flores, supra;*Penal Law §§ 60.06, 70.00 [3] [a] [i]; [5]; CPL 400.27 [1]).

Because a conviction on the greatest of several concurrent counts is deemed a dismissal of every lesser count submitted to the jury *(see*CPL 300.40 [3] [b]), the defendant’s convictions of murder in the second degree must be vacated.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, H. Miller and Adams, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, David T.
McGraw, certify that:

1.          I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Communications Systems,
Inc.;

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 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 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 registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and

5.          The
registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the 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.

|                       |    |                          | 
|---------------------- | -- | ------------------------ | 
|                       | By | /s/ David T.
 McGraw     | 
|                       |    | David T.
 McGraw        
|                       |    | Chief
 Financial Officer
|Date: August
 10, 2010 |    |                         

27

---