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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-4357

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL ALEXANDER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-02-430)

Submitted: February 2, 2004 Decided: February 17, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Denise C. Barrett, Assistant

Federal Public Defender, Martin G. Bahl, Staff Attorney, OFFICE OF

THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant.

Thomas M. DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Bryan E. Foreman,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Michael Alexander was convicted by a jury of one count of

possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine and one count of

possession with intent to distribute marijuana, and was sentenced

to seventy months imprisonment. He appeals, claiming that the

district court erred in admitting expert testimony from a law

enforcement official that included an opinion as to Alexander’s

intent, allegedly in violation of Fed. R. Evid. 704(b). Because he

failed to object at trial, we review this claim only for plain

error. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b). To establish plain error,

Alexander must show: (1) there was an error; (2) the error was

plain or clear under current law; (3) the error affected

substantial rights so as to prejudice him; and (4) the error

seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of

the judicial proceedings. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725,

731-32 (1993). We find that there was no error. 

An expert witness may testify about an established

practice among drug dealers, provided that he does not speak

directly to the guilt or innocence of the accused. See United

States v. Conyers, 118 F.3d 755, 758 (D.C. Cir. 1997). We find

that the officer’s testimony here did not offer an opinion as to

Alexander’s intent. He testified only that the evidence presented

(quantity, packaging, and a digital scale) was inconsistent with

personal use. Accordingly, we find no error in the district
- 3 -

court’s admission of the expert’s testimony. See United States v.

Gastiaburo, 16 F.3d 582, 587-88 (4th Cir. 1994) (holding that

admission of expert testimony that twenty-one “hits” of crack

cocaine were “certainly possessed with the intent to distribute”

was not plain error). Nor do we find that the expert’s testimony

was unduly prejudicial under Fed. R. Evid. 403. 

Accordingly, we affirm Alexander’s conviction. 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 in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS DATA EXTRACTED FROM THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND
THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000717422
<NAME> LINCOLN LOGS LTD. 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                                         359,107
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  328,846
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,000
<INVENTORY>                                    618,248
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,749,304
<PP&E>                                       4,932,577
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,154,499
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,677,650
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,916,356
<BONDS>                                        725,283
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        14,500
<OTHER-SE>                                    (38,810)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,677,650
<SALES>                                      7,505,032
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,505,032
<CGS>                                        5,020,538
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,020,538
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             221,270
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,767
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,569
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,198
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,198
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

         I, V. Jeffrey Harrell, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB, as amended, of
Video Without Boundaries, Inc.;

         2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report, as amended, 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 annual report, as amended;

         3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, as amended, 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 annual report,
as amended;

         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 any consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
         us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
         which this annual report, as amended, is being prepared; and

                  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
         controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this
         annual report, as amended (the "Evaluation Date"); and presented in
         this annual report, as amended, our conclusions about the effectiveness
         of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of
         the Evaluation Date;

         5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent function):

                  a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
         design or operation of internal controls and procedures 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 s and procedures over financial
         reporting.

August 31, 2005         By: /s/ V. Jeffrey Harrell
                        ------------------------------------
                        V. Jeffrey Harrell, Chief Executive Officer, President,
                        and  Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
*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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

___________________________

No. 98-20361

___________________________

In The Matter Of: Dennis Maurer; Brenda Maurer,

Debtors.

---------------------------------------------------

Dennis & Brenda Maurer,

Debtors-Appellants,

versus

Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts,

Appellee.

___________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(H-97-CV-2098)

 ___________________________________________________

April 15, 1999

Before GARWOOD, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Our review of the record in this case discloses that the

evidence is insufficient to compel a finding that either Lisa

Hastings--an employee of the Texas Attorney General--or the Texas

Attorney General was the agent for the Texas Comptroller such that

notice to Lisa Hastings constituted notice to the Texas

Comptroller.

Because the bankruptcy court did not err in finding that the
2

Texas Comptroller General failed to receive adequate notice of the

bar date, the court did not err in extending the bar date for the

Texas Comptroller to file his claim, and the district court did not

err in affirming the extension of the bar date.

AFFIRMED.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LORENZO MARTINEZ-NIETO, Petitioner,
v. ERIC H. HOLDER JR., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 05-75663 Agency No. A075-693-753
MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 12, 2010 ** San Francisco, California Before: WALLACE, GRABER, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Lorenzo Martinez-Nieto (“Martinez”), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for cancellation 

# FILED
MAR 17 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 of removal and the BIA’s denial of his motion to remand for consideration of his application for adjustment of status. We dismiss the petition in part and de ny in part. Martinez’s conviction for conspiracy to commit marriage fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 constituted a crime of moral turpitude rendering him in eligible for cancellation relief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(B) & (C). The plea agr eement states expressly that Martinez and his co-conspirator “agreed to defraud the INS by fraudulently obtaining permanent residence status and a ‘green card’ for MARTINEZ.” Thus, the record of conviction makes clear that Martinez was convicted for “conspiracy to defraud” a federal agency and that he possessed th e intent to defraud required for a moral turpitude offense. See McNaughton v. INS , 612 F.2d 457, 459 (9th Cir. 1980) (per curiam) (explaining that a crime involving “the intent to defraud clearly is one involving moral turpitude”). Since the filing of this appeal, the De partment of Homeland Security denied Martinez’s spousal visa petition, and the BIA dismissed Martinez’s administrative appeal. Consequently, his request for a remand in order to seek adjustment of status is moot. See DHX, Inc. v. Allianz AGF MAT, Ltd. , 425 F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir. 2005) (order).3 Finally, Martinez failed to allege a colorable equal protection challenge to the IJ’s refusal to grant a continuance, butrather simply dressed up his challenge to the IJ’s abuse of discretion in “constitutional garb.” See Torres-Aguilar v. INS , 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir. 2001). Consequen tly, we lack jurisdiction to review this claim. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
#### 831.7000-1 Definitions.

*Chapter 31* refers to the vocational rehabilitation and employment (VR&E) program that provides training and rehabilitation for Veterans with service-connected disabilities under chapter 31 of Title 38 U.S.C.

*Consumable instructional supplies* means those supplies which are required for instruction in the classroom, shop school, and laboratory of an educational institution, which are consumed, destroyed, or expended by either the student, instructor or both in the process of use, and which have to be replaced at frequent intervals without adding to the value of the institution's physical property.

*Similarly circumstanced non-Veteran student* means a student in equal or like situations as a person who is neither receiving educational or training benefits under chapter 31 or chapter 33 of Title 38 U.S.C. or the savings provisions of section 12(a) of Public Law 85-857, nor having all or any part of tuition fees or other charges paid by the educational institution.

*Work adjustment training* means a specialized structure program that is facility or community based and designated to assist an individual in acquiring or improving work skills, work behaviors, work tolerance, interpersonal skills or work ethics.
47 So.2d 477

#### CITY OF NATCHITOCHES v. RACHAL

No. 39839.

May 29, 1950.

Rehearing Denied June 30, 1950.

*739Gahagan & Pierson, Natchitoches, for defendant-appellant.

Watson & Williams, Natchitoches, for plaintiff-appellee.

MOISE, Justice.

The defendant, Wilson Radial, reserved .several bills of exception during the course of his trial. The record shows, however, that these bills were not formally prepared and presented to the district judge for his signature and per curiam before the appeal was taken, nor does it show that time was granted for the presentation of these bills.

Our jurisprudence is well-settled that the mere reservation of bills of exception at the time of the court’s ruling complained of, is not sufficient, but that formal bills should be presented and signed before appeal. Arts. 542 and 543, La.Code of Crim.LaW and Proc.; State v. Carlson, 192 La. 501, 188 So. 155.

Since there are no valid bills before the Court, and since we find no errors patent on the face of this record, there is nothing for us to review. State v. Butler, 137 La. 526, 68 So. 859; State v. Snowden, 174 La. 156, 140 So. 9; State v. Owens, 210 La. 808, 28 So.2d 337.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is sustained.

PER CURIAM.

In our original decree, it was not our intention to sustain a motion to dismiss the appeal, but it was intended that the judgment of conviction and sentence appealed from be affirmed. The decree will be recast so as to read:

“Judgment of conviction and sentence appealed from is affirmed.”
#### 552.238-102 English Language and U.S. Dollar Requirements.

As prescribed in 538.273(d)(26), insert the following clause:

# English Language and U.S. Dollar Requirements (MAY 2019)

(a) All documents produced by the Contractor to fulfill requirements of this contract including, but not limited to, Federal Supply Schedule catalogs and price lists, must reflect all terms and conditions in the English language.

(b) U.S. dollar equivalency, if applicable, will be based on the rates published in the “Treasury Reporting Rates of Exchange” in effect as of the date of the agency's purchase order or in effect during the time period specified elsewhere in this contract.

(End of clause)

[84 FR 17046, Apr. 23, 2019]
#### GENET, Appellant, v. DELAWARE & HUDSON CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

July 12, 1906.)

Action by Augusta G. Genet against the Delaware & Hudson Company. L. Hand, for appellant. F. B. Smith, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.
## Questions for EPA on Survey Response to PVC MACT Section 114 Request

1. Define Maintenance wastewater

. 2. Can the survey forms be consistent in the units used, i.e. SI and US engineering units are mixed in the request?
3. On form C

- 1

- c, the liquid loading rte is listed as liters/sq. meter. What is the time basis e.g. seconds, minut es, hours?
4. Should separate copies of form D be filled out for each unique heat exchanger system or should a single sheet be submitted for the entire system i.e. cooling tower? Should the slurry stripper feed /bottoms exchanger be included? Should heat ex changers in steam service be included?
5. How should multiple sheets for a single form be labeled?
6. On form O, it is assumed gas holders, VCM storage tanks, and wastewater storage tanks are included. Should vessels in PVC slurry service and raw material servi ce (e.g. suspending agents, termination chemicals) be included?

7. Clarify definition of process unit.
8. Clarify definition of production campaign.
9. If a plant is manufacturing multiple resin grades simultaneously, how should form B

- 1 be completed or should the facility be divided into multiple process units?
10. Is the EPA willing to accept survey data on different resin grades as opposed to different production campaigns?
11. On form B

- 2, if the thermal oxidizer is shared with another process and is covered under a

sep arate Title V operating permit, should it be include on the PFD and form B

- 2?

12. Form D

– Do we need to report data for heat exchange systems that are not in contact with a HAP? Do we need to report on heat exchange systems that do not rely on cooling water ?

13. Form H

– What is the definition of “activity” here? ( I think they are asking for the number of unloading events of each material per year, but I don’t see a clear definition of that term. ) In other words, do we complete one sheet for each chemical that i s loaded, or do we complete one sheet for each loading for each chemical?

14. Can multiple batches of one resin grade be one campaign?
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-20241

Summary Calendar

 

JULES J. WALTER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

PARSONS CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC;

CNA INSURANCE COMPANY; MA ILAHI, MD; 

TONY SAPPINGTON, D.C.; TRANSPORTATION 

INSURANCE COMPANY, also known as CNA 

Insurance Company; CONTINENTAL CASUALTY

COMPANY, also known as CNA Insurance

Company,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-97-CV-120

- - - - - - - - - -

November 23, 1998

Before DAVIS, DUHE’, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jules J. Walter has filed a motion to proceed in forma

pauperis (IFP) in the appeal of the dismissal of his employment

discrimination suit. His motion is construed as a challenge to

the district court’s certification pursuant to Fed. R. App. P.

24(a) that Walter’s appeal was not taken in good faith. See

Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 201-02 (5th Cir. 1997). Because 
No. 98-20241 

-2-

Walter does not raise any nonfrivolous appellate issue, his

motion to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED. Carson v. Polley, 689

F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). Walter’s motions for the

appointment of counsel and for the “docket removal” of the

attorney of record for CNA are DENIED as moot. 

Appellee Ilahi’s motion to dismiss and for damages pursuant

to Fed. R. App. P. 38 is GRANTED. Walter is ORDERED to pay

double costs of the appeal to Appellee Ilahi. Further it is

ORDERED that Walter’s handwritten pleadings, which are not

allowed under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, be

STRICKEN.
**EXHIBIT 15.1**

 

July 28, 2005 

 

Premcor Inc. 

1700 East Putnam Avenue 

Suite 400 

Old Greenwich, CT 06870 

 

We have made a review, in accordance with standards of the Public Company AccountingOversight Board (United States), of the unaudited interim financial information of Premcor Inc. and subsidiaries for the periods ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, as indicated in our report dated July 28, 2005; because we did not perform an audit, weexpressed no opinion on that information. 

 

We are aware that our reportreferred to above, which is included in your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005, is incorporated by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-87210 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement Nos. 333-111240-01,333-121477, and 333-116503 on Form S-3. 

 

We also are aware that theaforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning ofSections 7 and 11 of that Act. 

 

*Deloitte& Touche LLP*

Stamford, CT
August 2, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

OMAR JAVIER TORRES, Appellant

NO. 14-11-00698-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having 

considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court 

orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Exhibit 15(a)

 

Consent of Independent Registered PublicAccounting Firm

 

We consent to the incorporation by referencein Registration Statement Nos. 333-208276, 333-178183 and 333-162857 on Forms S-8 of our reports dated April 28, 2016, relatingto the consolidated financial statements of Advanced Semiconductor Engineering, Inc. and its subsidiaries (the “Group”)(which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the convenience translation ofNew Taiwan dollar amounts into U.S. dollar amounts); and the effectiveness of the Group’s internal control over financialreporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Group for the year ended December 31, 2015.

 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche

 

Taipei, Taiwan

The Republic of China 

April 28, 2016