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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4807

DAMEION FARRAR YOUNG,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.

Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge.

(CR-00-42)

Submitted: July 18, 2002

Decided: July 25, 2002

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Amy E. Ray, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C.F.

Shappert, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Dameion Farrar Young appeals from the 108-month sentence

imposed upon his guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to

distribute, and possession with intent to distribute, crack cocaine, 21

U.S.C.A. §§ 841, 846(a)(1) (West 1999). At sentencing, the district

court reduced Young’s offense level by two levels based on its finding that he had a minor role in the offense. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual, § 3B1.2(b) (2000). On appeal, Young claims that the

district court erred in denying him an additional two-level reduction

for having a minimal role in the offense. See USSG § 3B1.2(a). 

The sentencing court’s determination of a defendant’s role in the

offense is reviewed for clear error. United States v. Love, 134 F.3d

595, 606 (4th Cir. 1998). A defendant has a minimal role in a concerted criminal activity if he is among the least culpable of those

involved in the conduct of the group. USSG § 3B1.2, comment. (n.1).

A minimal role is indicated by a "defendant’s lack of knowledge or

understanding of the scope and structure of the enterprise and of the

activities of others . . . ." (Id.). The defendant has the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to a mitigating role adjustment. United States v. Akinkoye, 185 F.3d 192, 202 (4th

Cir. 1999). 

The evidence presented to the district court established that Young

lived with one of the leaders of the conspiracy, who would sometimes

pay his bets with Young in crack cocaine, which Young would, in

turn, sell to crack addicts. This court has held that a defendant who

sells drugs is not entitled to a mitigating role adjustment. United

States v. Brooks, 957 F.2d 1138, 1149 (4th Cir. 1992). Therefore, the

district court did not clearly err in failing to find that Young had a

minimal role. Accordingly, we affirm Young’s sentence. 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. 

AFFIRMED

2 UNITED STATES v. YOUNG
EXHIBIT 32.2

                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 the  quarterly  report of Avitar,  Inc.  (the  "Company") on
Form10-QSB for the period ending  December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jay C. Leatherman,
Jr.,  Chief  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, to my knowledge, that:

     (1) The Report  fully  complies  with the  requirements  of  Section  13(a)
or15(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: February 14, 2005

                                          /s/ Jay C. Leatherman, Jr.
                                          -------------------------
                                          Jay C. Leatherman, Jr.
                                          Chief Financial Officer (Principal
                                          Financial and Accounting Officer),
                                          Secretary
Motion Granted; Case Reinstated; Order filed May 16, 2019

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 18

- 00690

- CV

____________ KEEBLE LOVALL & LIZ YOUNG , Appellant

V.
U.S. BANK NATIONAL A SSOCIATION, NOT IN I T'S INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BUT S OLEY AS TRUSTEE FOR THE RMAC TRUST,

SERIES 2016

- CTT , Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 18

- CCV

- 061841



### ORDER
Appellant filed a petition for voluntary bankruptcy in the United States
Bankru ptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. W hen this court received notice of appellant ’ s bankruptcy filing on August 23, 201 8 , we stayed all proceedings in the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 8.2.
On April 30, 3019 , appellee filed a motion to reinstate t he appeal pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 8.3(a).
The motion is granted. Accordingly, the case is ordered REINSTATED and placed on the court ’ s active docket.Appellant ’ s brief is due to be filed with the clerk of this court on or before

Ju ne 17, 2019

.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Jewell, and Hassan.
#### Hargrove v. Addison et al.

*Milton Jacobson,*for plaintiff.

*Herbert C. Nelson,*for defendants.

December 29, 1950.

Forrest, J.,

— A complaint in trespass for the recovery of alleged damages of $615, resulting from an automobile collision, was brought by Robert Hargrove, Jr., plaintiff, against Jetthro Addison and Whiting Brothers, defendants. The partnership of Whiting Brothers was served. Judgment for want of an appearance was taken against the part*235nership after notice was given to Herbert C. Nelson, Esq., who formerly had represented Orzel Whiting, one of the partners. In spite of this notice, Orzel Whiting refused to defend, claiming that the damages for the collision were settled by plaintiff’s paying him a small sum of money, both parties having come to the conclusion that the accident was the result of plaintiff’s negligence, he having hit the Whiting Brothers’ truck while it was parked along the curb.

After the entry of the judgment, Orzel Whiting filed his petition to open the judgment after which depositions were taken. There seems to be little or no dispute about the facts, the essential ones having been recited heretofore. On the basis of these defendant, Orzel Whiting, contends that the judgment should be opened.

This ease is not without difficulty since on the one hand we have the rights of plaintiff arising from the statutory procedural principles and the rights of defendant arising from the equities of the matter. In such a procedure the courts should be reluctant to allow equities to prevail over plaintiff’s rights; however, in a proper case plaintiff’s rights must be submerged by overwhelming equities.

“Petitions to open judgments by default are addressed to the trial court’s sound discretion and are essentially equitable proceedings ruled by equitable principles: *Horn v. Witherspoon,*327 Pa. 295; relief will be given where such a petition is promptly filed, the default reasonably explained or excused, and a defense shown to exist upon the merits: *Pinsky v. Master,*343 Pa. 451, 452; *Fuel City Mfg. Co. v. Waynesbury P.C., 268*Pa. 441”: Quaker City Chocolate and Confectioner Company v. Warnock, 347 Pa.. 186, 190 (1943).

If we deny this application, irreparable damage may be done defendant for it may be that plaintiff’s case *236is without merit. If defendant substantiates his defenses plaintiff has no case and we feel that an opportunity should be allowed defendant to do so. Plaintiff will still have his day in court and has not been prejudiced by the delay.

And now, December 29, 1950, the rule is made abso- , lute and the judgment is opened and defendant, Orzel Whiting, is allowed 20 days from this date to file his answer to the complaint.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 23
                                                                      ----------


Coopers                                                 COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
& Lybrand                                           a professional services firm


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of
Intimate Brands, Inc. on Form S-8, Registration Nos. 333-1960, 333-04921,
333-04923 and 333-10215 of our report dated February 20, 1998, on our audits of
the consolidated financial statements of Intimate Brands, Inc. and subsidiaries
as of January 31, 1998, and February 1, 1997, and for the fiscal years ended
January 31, 1998, February 1, 1997, and February 3, 1996, which report is
included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.


                                                /s/ COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.

                                                COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.


Columbus, Ohio
April 28, 1998
[No. 16258-3-III.

Division Three.

January 27, 1998.]

#### Pamela Bumpas, *Respondent,*v. Eastern Washington University, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Spokane County, No. 93-2-02719-7, Harold D. Clarke, J., entered October 29, 1996. *Affirmed in part*and *reversed in part*by unpublished opinion per Kato, J., concurred in by Schultheis, C.J., and Brown, J.
<PAGE>



                        CONSENT OF MARKS SHRON & COMPANY, LLP

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Amended Annual Report on 
Form 10-K/A, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by NHP 
Incorporated (NHP) of our reports dated January 19, 1995 and January 25, 1996 
with respect to the audits of Two Bridges Associates for the years ended 
December 31, 1994 and 1995, and the incorporation by reference of such report 
into NHP's Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-11933), NHP's 
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-11863), NHP's Registration 
Statement on Form S-8 (333-11917), NHP's Registration Statement on Form S-8 
(333-11857) and NHP's Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No.333-08137).

                                            /s/ Marks Shron & Company, LLP

                                            Marks Shron & Company, LLP

   
Great Neck, New York
October 27, 1997
Order entered January 23, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00868-CV

BRIGETTA D’OLIVIO, Appellant

V.

GREG FOX, Appellee

On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-16-05606

ORDER

By order dated January 15, 2019, we granted the motion to withdraw filed by appellant’s 

counsel. Appellant is now appearing pro se. Prior to withdrawing, counsel for appellant filed a 

brief and appellee has filed his brief.

Before the Court is the January 18, 2019 amended motion of appellant requesting to file 

an amended brief. We GRANT the motion. Appellant shall file an amended brief by February 

21, 2019. Appellee shall have thirty days from the date appellant files a pro se brief to file any 

amended brief.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL

JUSTICE
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the special financial report pursuant to Rule 15d-2 under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the Report) of National Atlantic Holdings Corporation (the Company), I,
James V. Gorman, Chairman and Chief Executive 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: (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: April 27, 2005 /s/ James V. Gorman  
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version 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.
**Exhibit 31(b)**
 **REPUBLIC BANCORP INC.**
 **Certification of the Principal Financial Officer**
 **Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)**
 **(Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)**
 
 
 I, Thomas F. Menacher, certify that:
 
 1.
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q (for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004) of Republic Bancorp 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 we 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 controls 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: November 8, 2004
/s/ Thomas F. MenacherThomas F. MenacherExecutive Vice President, Treasurer and
Chief Financial Officer
APPENDIX D: CONCEPTUAL WRAP AND SELECTED EDMS COMPARISON
Conceptual WRAP and Selected Existing EDMS Comparison

Conceptual

WRAP EDMS

National

Emissions

Inventory

Tribal Emissions

Inventory

Software

Solution

California Air

Resources Board

Emissions

Inventory

Colorad

Departme

Health A

Pollution Inv

Data Tracking1

Pollutants 9 7 7 5 5 Sources 6 4 3 3 3 Activity Data Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Emissions Factors Yes Yes Yes No No Temporal Resolution Variable2 Annual Annual Annual AnnuaSpatial Resolution County /

Reservation / Point County / Point Reservation / Point County / Point County / P

 Standard Submission Format Yes Yes No3 Yes No4 

Data QA/QC1

Submission Format Check Yes Yes No3 Yes No4 Content Validation Yes Yes Yes Yes No4 

Submission Completeness Yes Yes Yes Yes No4 

Data Reporting1

Standard Summary Reports Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Regional Haze Rule Specific Reports Yes No No No No Data Exports Yes Yes Yes Minimal Minim

 Model Ready Input File, i.e. SMOKE Yes No No No No 

GIS Component1

Multiple Display Tools Provided Yes No Yes No Yes 

Ability to Query Emissions Database andDisplay Results

Yes No Yes No Yes 

User Access and Preferences1 Publicly Accessible via Internet Yes Yes No Yes Yes 

1 See Sections 3.1 and 3.3 for the description of the conceptual WRAP EDMS and the selected existing EDMS2 Some emissions data will be submitted at the hourly, daily, seasonal, or annual levels. However, the reporting temporal resolution will 3 TEISS does not have one standard submission format. In fact TEISS accepts many formats.4 This system is not the primary emission inventory system for Colorado. It is a secondary system included in this analysis because of its
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.2



                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Forms S-8 (No. 333-45669 and No. 333-47573) of Global TeleSystems
Group, Inc. of our report dated March 3, 1999 relating to the consolidated
financial statements of Esprit Telecom Group plc, which is incorporated by
reference in this Annual Report of Global TeleSystems Group, Inc. on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 1999.

/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS

PricewaterhouseCoopers

London, England
March 3, 2000
EXHIBIT 32





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Clearway Energy, Inc. on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2018, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Form 10-K/A”), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officer's knowledge:


|    |                                                                                                                           
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | The Form 10-K/A 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 Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Form 10-K/A.




Date: March 29, 2019





/s/ CHRISTOPHER S. SOTOSChristopher S. SotosChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ CHAD PLOTKINChad PlotkinChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)/s/ MARY-LEE STILLWELLMary-Lee StillwellChief Accounting Officer(Principal Accounting Officer)


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of this Form 10-K/A or as a separate disclosure document.


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Clearway Energy, Inc. and will be retained by Clearway Energy, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Town of Charlestown *v.*Olvey et al.

[No. 18,805.

Filed January 11, 1901.]

Appeal and *Error.*— MU *of Exceptions*— Evidence.—The ruling of the trial court denying a motion for a new trial, where the grounds of the motion are that the decision of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence, and is contrary to law, will not be reviewed on appeal if the bill of exceptions does not certify that it contains all the evidence given *in*the cause.

Erom the Clark Circuit Court.

*Affirmed.*

*60
      *Ward-Hi W-atson,*for appellant.

*■II.-A. Bitrli*and *J. E. Taggart,*for appellees.

Baker, J.

Suit by appellant to enjoin appellees from obstructing a culvert through which surface water was discharged from a street in the town onto appellees’ premises.. Answer, general denial. The trial resulted in a general' finding and judgment for appellees. Appellant’s motion for' a new trial was overruled. The only error assigned,and discussed” questions the ruling on the motion.

'The grounds'of the motion are that the decision of the court is not sustained by’sufficient evidence and'is contrary' to law. The judge certifies in a bill of exceptions that at’ the'trial certain witnesses gave certain testimony for the pláintiíf' arid “here the plaintiff rested”, and that certain witnesses gave certain testimony for the defendants and “here the defendánts’rested”; but does riot Certify that this was all the evidence given in the cause. No qüestión is presented.' Tho*rne*v. *Indianapolis, etc., Co.,*152 Ind. 317.

Judgment affirmed.
§ 520.2260c Sulfamethazine sustained-release tablets. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each extended-release tablet contains 8 grams sulfamethazine.
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 054771 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Related tolerances.* See § 556.670 of this chapter.
( d ) *Conditions of use* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* 8 grams (1 tablet) per 45 pounds of body weight as a single dose.
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* In calves for sustained treatment of pneumonia caused by *Pasteurella* spp., colibacillosis (bacterial scours) caused by *Escherichia coli;* and calf diptheria caused by *Fusobacterium necrophorum.*
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Treated animals must not be slaughtered for food within 18 days after the latest treatment. Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[48 FR 26763, June 10, 1983, as amended at 56 FR 50653, Oct. 8, 1991; 59 FR 22754, May 3, 1994; 61 FR 4875, Feb. 9, 1996; 79 FR 28830, May 20, 2014]