alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Walter CREDIT *v.*STATE of Arkansas

5436

445 S. W. 2d 718

Opinion delivered October 20, 1969

*Louis W. Rostech,*for appellant.

*Joe Pitrcell,*Attorney General; *Don Langston*and *Mihe Wilson,*Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.

Frank Holt, Justice.

The appellant was charged with second degree murder. The court, sitting as a jury, found him guilty and assessed his punishment at fifteen years in the state penitentiary. He did not appeal. As an inmate, he filed Avith the trial court a petition for a writ of habeas corpus Avhich was treated as a petition for post-conviction relief under our Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1. His present counsel was appointed and a hearing was conducted by the court. By written findings of fact and conclusions of law the trial court dismissed appellant’s petition.

*425On appeal the appellant contends that his constitutional rights, under the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause, were violated at his trial in that his attorney did not call a certain witness in appellant’s behalf. At the evidentiary hearing under Rule No. 1, the appellant’s trial attorney, who was employed by appellant, testified that in his judgment further testimony would have been of no avail in view of appellant’s damaging statements or admissions as a witness in his own behalf. The record does not show what the omitted testimony of appellant’s witness would have been. We agree with the trial court’s finding that there is nothing demonstrated “in the record to indicate how the failure to call this witness prejudiced the petitioner [appellant] in any way.” Further, we have recently said there is no denial of a fair trial where the basis of a defendant’s complaint relates primarily to his counsel’s trial tactics and strategy which involve elements of discretion and judgment upon which competent counsel might honestly disagree, especially after the event. *Barnhill*v. *State,*247 Ark. 28, 444 S. W. 2d 97 (1969).

The appellant further contends that the trial court erred in not reducing the charge to manslaughter and that the sentence imposed upon the defendant was oppressive. We find no merit in either of these contentions. Neither was contained in appellant’s petition. Both contentions are argued for the first time on appeal. It is a most familiar rule that issues raised for the first time on appeal cannot be considered. The sentence imposed was within the limits set by the legislature and from a review of the record before us we cannot say that the evidence is insubstantial. It should also be observed that our Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 was not formulated to permit such an attack upon a sentence which is within the statutory limits.

After a full review and canvass of the record in the case at bar we are of the view that there exists no violation of appellant’s constitutional rights.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 156 (Friday, August 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 41176]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19490]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Reporting Requirements Submitted for OMB Review

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice of Reporting Requirements Submitted for OMB Review; 
Correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Small Business Administration published a document in the 
Federal Register of August 7, 2009, concerning Reporting and 
Recordkeeping Requirements. The document contained an incorrect word in 
the title.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Curtis Rich, 202-205-7030.

Correction:

    In the Federal Register of August 7, 2009, FR document E9-18948, 
Volume 74, Number 151, page 39727, under Supplementary Information 
``Title'' should read:

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
     Title: Disaster Home/Business Loan Inquiry Record.

    Dated: August 7, 2009.
Curtis B. Rich,
Acting, Chief Administrative Information Branch.
[FR Doc. E9-19490 Filed 8-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
1 

### Kelly, Shaheerah

From: Kelly, Shaheerah

Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 6:20 AM

To: 'Shane Young'

Cc: Rios, Gerardo; Christenson, Kara

Subject: RE: Follow Up

Hi Shane,

I was away from the office yesterday. Thanks for checking in. I will get back to you today, or as soon as possible, if we

need more information. At this time, I cannot provide a timeline regarding when the public comment period will

commence. Feel free to continue checking in.

************************************

Shaheerah Kelly

U.S. Environmental Protec tion Agency, Region 9

Permits Office, Air Division

San Francisco, CA 94105

Phone: 415-947-4156

Fax: 415-947-3579

Email: kelly.shaheerah@epa.gov

From: Shane Young [ mailto:SWyoung@spi-ind.com ]

Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 3:48 PM

To: Kelly, Shaheerah

Subject: Follow Up

Good afternoon Shaheerah,

Just a quick follow up to inquire as to the status of the PSD permit. I tried to call yesterday to touch base. I trust you

have all the information you require. Can you give me any estimated timeline as to when we may see the PSD permit go

to public comment? Let me know if there is any other information you may need.

Best Regards

Shane Young

Sierra Pacific Industries

19758 Riverside Ave

Anderson Ca. 96007

P 530

‐ 378

‐ 8356

C 530

‐ 604

‐ 0025

swyoung@spi

‐ ind.com
# L_2020415EN.01008701.xml

| 10.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 415/87 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 415/87

---

Corrigendum to the Definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2020/1776 of amending budget No 7 of the European Union for the financial year 2020

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 401 of 30 November 2020

On page 21, row 1 4 ‘OWN RESOURCES BASED ON GROSS NATIONAL INCOME TO POINT (C) OF ARTICLE 2(1) OF DECISION 2014/335/EU, EURATOM’:

in column ‘Budget 2020’:

for:

‘
  115 905 134 859
  ’,

read:

‘
  115 555 134 859
  ’;

in column ‘New amount’:

for:

‘
  121 438 277 059
  ’,

read:

‘
  121 088 277 059
  ’.

---
Editorial Note on Part 301
Editorial Note: In the text of this part, integral section references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; decimal section references are to the Code of Federal Regulations. References in the text to the “Code” are references to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

§ 301.6103(h)(4)-1 Disclosure of returns and return information in whistleblower administrative proceedings. ( a ) *In general.* A whistleblower administrative proceeding (as described in § 301.7623-3) is an administrative proceeding pertaining to tax administration within the meaning of section 6103(h)(4).
( b ) *Disclosures in whistleblower administrative proceedings.* Pursuant to section 6103(h)(4) and paragraph (a) of this section, the Director, officers, and employees of the Whistleblower Office may disclose returns and return information (as defined by section 6103(b)) to a whistleblower (or the whistleblower's legal representative, if any) to the extent necessary to conduct a whistleblower administrative proceeding (as described in § 301.7623-3), including but not limited to— ( 1 ) By communicating a preliminary award recommendation or preliminary denial letter to the whistleblower;
( 2 ) By providing the whistleblower with an award report package;
( 3 ) By conducting a meeting with the whistleblower to review documents supporting the preliminary award recommendation; and
( 4 ) By sending an award decision letter, award determination letter, or award denial letter to the whistleblower.
( c ) *Effective/applicability date.* This rule is effective on August 12, 2014. This rule applies to information submitted on or after August 12, 2014, and to claims for award under sections 7623(a) and 7623(b) that are open as of August 12, 2014.
[T.D. 9687, 79 FR 47264, Aug. 12, 2014]
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**Certification of Principal Executive OfficerPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Merit Medical Systems, Inc.(the “Company”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the “Report”), I,Fred P. Lampropoulos, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

(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 materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date:  August 6, 2010 | /s/  Fred P. Lampropoulos                                             |
|----------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                       | Fred  P. Lampropoulos                                                 |
|                       | President  and Chief Executive Officer  (principal executive officer) |

 

 

Thiscertification accompanies the foregoing Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 andshall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, bedeemed filed by the Registrant for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  A signed original of thiscertification has been provided to the Company and will be retained by theCompany and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.

 

----
EXHIBIT 31.1




RULE 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, J. Randolph Potter, certify that:


1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Summit Financial Corporation;
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 calendar quarter 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 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: July 28, 2004 |                                                          
|------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------
|                    | J. Randolph Potter, President and Chief Executive Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

COLLEEN WYNN, § § No. 111, 2017 Defendant-Below, § Appellant, § Court Below: Superior Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § Cr. ID No. K1510017985 STATE OF DELAWARE, § § Plaintiff-Below, § Appellee. § Submitted: December 13, 2017 Decided: December 22, 2017

Before STRINE , Chief Justice; VALIHURA , and SEITZ , Justices. ORDER

This 22 nd day of December, 2017 having consid ered the briefs and the record below, it appears to the Court that: (1) On November 2, 2015, a Kent County grand jury indicted the appellant, Colleen Wynn, for one count of theft of greater than $50,00 0, four counts of theft of greater than or equal to $15,000, two count s of forgery in the second degree, and one count of identity theft arising from four tran sactions at the used car dealership she and her husband, Desmond Wynn, owned and operated. At the final case review on November 30, 2016, a week before her tria l was to begin, Wynn made a request for a continuance of two weeks to a month, cl aiming that a medical issue necessitated a2 postponement because her co ndition and medication could cause fatigue and affect her memory and comprehension. The trial judge denied the request . On December 13, 2016, after a five-day trial, the jury found Wynn guilty on all charges. Wynn was sentenced to a total of thirty years of Level V incarcerati on, suspended after eighteen months for one year of Level III probation, and rest itution of $121,830 to

the victims. (2) Wynn has appealed a single issue—wh ether the Superior Court abused its discretion by denying her c ontinuance request in light of her medical condition. Wynn claims that her medical conditio n could have interfered with her comprehension and memory, and therefore coul d have prejudiced he r at trial. This Court reviews the denial of a request for c ontinuance for abuse of discretion and will not overturn the ruling unless it is clearly unreasonable or capricious. 1 (3) Wynn’s arguments on appeal are wit hout merit. The trial court is afforded broad discretion when deciding to grant or deny a request for continuance. 2 Wynn had been granted four continuan ces in a little over a year since her

indictment. 3 The trial judge was able to assess her condition first-hand, and determined that she was capable of particip ating in her own defe nse. She was also

1 Bailey v. State , 521 A.2d 1069, 1088 (Del. 1987). 2 Id

. 3 App. to Opening Br. at 1-3. Wynn requested the earlier continuances for personal issues unrelated to her current medical issue, a nd for two changes of defense counsel.3 represented by counsel, and able to testify at trial. Thus, the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion in denying th e request for a continuance. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY OR DERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Justice
IV

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 34

Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the Ringling Bros. and

Barnum & Bailey Circus Anniversary Commemoration.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 8, 1995

Mr. GILCHREST submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the Ringling

Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus Anniversary Commemoration.

Whereas Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus celebrates its 125th year on April 10, 1995, during its engagement in our Nation’s Capital;

Whereas Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus represents a 200-year tradition of circus in America;

Whereas Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus demonstrates to children of all ages that humans and animals

can work together in harmony and cooperation; and

Whereas Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus is committed to its goal of educating the people of the United
2

•HCON 34 IH

States as to the need to conserve endangered species:

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring),

3 SECTION 1. USE OF CAPITOL GROUNDS FOR RINGLING

4 BROS. AND BARNUM & BAILEY CIRCUS ANNI5 VERSARY COMMEMORATION.

6 Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus (herein7 after in this resolution referred to as ‘‘Ringling Bros.’’)

8 shall be permitted to sponsor a public event, with circus

9 elephants and performers, on the Capitol Grounds on

10 April 3, 1995, or on such other date as the Speaker of

11 the House of Representatives and the President pro tem12 pore of the Senate may jointly designate.

13 SEC. 2. CONDITIONS.

14 The event to be carried out under this resolution shall

15 be free of admission charge to the public and arranged

16 not to interfere with the needs of Congress, under condi17 tions to be prescribed by the Architect of the Capitol and

18 the Capitol Police Board; except that Ringling Bros. shall

19 assume full responsibility for all expenses and liabilities

20 incident to all activities associated with the event.

21 SEC. 3. STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT.

22 For the purposes of this resolution, Ringling Bros.

23 is authorized to erect upon the Capitol grounds, subject

24 to the approval of the Architect of the Capitol, such stage,
3

•HCON 34 IH

1 sound amplification devices, and other related structures

2 and equipment as may be required for the event to be car3 ried out under this resolution.

4 SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS.

5 The Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police

6 Board are authorized to make any such additional ar7 rangements that may be required to carry out the event

8 under this resolution.

9 SEC. 5. LIMITATION ON REPRESENTATIONS.

10 Ringling Bros. shall not represent, either directly or

11 indirectly, that this resolution or any activity carried out

12 under this resolution in any way constitutes approval or

13 endorsement by the Federal Government of Ringling Bros.

14 or any product or service offered by Ringling Bros.

Æ
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. 08-51113

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

HECTOR JUAN ALVARADO-MUNIZ, also known as Hector J. Alvarado,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:08-CR-1457-ALL

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Hector Juan Alvarado-Muniz (Alvarado) appeals the 18-month sentence

he received for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He first asserts that his

within-Guidelines sentence should be vacated because the applicable Guidelines

range did not account for his history, characteristics, motive, or the seriousness

of the offense under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The district court considered that

Alvarado was raised in the United States and that he returned to see his family.

The court explicitly rejected the notion, however, that his desire to see his family

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 27, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-51113

2

justified his violation of the immigration laws. Alvarado has failed to rebut the

presumption that his Guidelines sentence was reasonable. See United States v.

Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008).

Alvarado next contends that the Guidelines range was too harsh in light

of Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 558, 574 (2007), because U.S.S.G. §

2L1.2 is not based upon empirical data and national experience. Kimbrough

“allow[s] district courts, in their discretion, to consider . . . the presence or

absence of empirical data, as part of their § 3553(a) analysis.” United States v.

Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366 (5th Cir. 2009), petition for cert. filed

(June 24, 2009) (No. 08-11099). Kimbrough does not affect the appellate

presumption of reasonableness that applies to within-Guidelines sentences. Id.

at 366–67.

 Alvarado next contends that § 2L1.2 “double counts” a defendant’s prior

conviction by using it as the basis for his offense level and his criminal history.

This argument is unavailing. Double counting is permissible under the

Guidelines, so long as it is not prohibited explicitly by the applicable Guideline.

United States v. Calbat, 266 F.3d 358, 364 (5th Cir. 2001). Section 2L1.2 does

not expressly prohibit double counting. See § 2L1.2, cmt. (n.6).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage  Servicing**D1050-084, 8th Fl  401 South Tryon Street  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE** 

 

Reference is hereby made tothat certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of November 1, 2016, byand among Banc of America Merrill Lynch Commercial Mortgage Inc, as Depositor,Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Rialto CapitalAdvisors, LLC as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, asCertificate Administrator, Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee  and Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, as Operating Advisorand Asset Representations Reviewer with respect to Commercial MortgagePass-Through Certificates Series 2016-C31 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meaningsassigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.09 ofthe Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial MortgageServices do hereby certify that:

 

1.  A review of theactivities of the Master Servicer during the period from November 1, 2016through December 31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”), and of itsperformance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision, and 

2.  To the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2017.

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|