alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6045

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DONTE ROLANDO HARRIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (1:02-cr-00381-WDQ; 1:06-cv-03080-WMN) Submitted: February 22, 2007 Decided: March 5, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donte Rolando Harris, Appellant Pro Se. James G. Warwick, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Donte Rolando Harris seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his pleading as a successive motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Harris 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### BICA v STATE

Ohio Appeals, 7th Dist, Mahoning Co

Decided June 11, 1930

D. F. Rendinell, Youngstown, for Bica.

R. L. Thomas, Prosecuting Attorney,' Youngstown, for State.

POLLOCK, J.

The only reason urged why this judgment should be reversed at this time is that the liquor which these parties found at the *477house had been found and taken charge of by the officers at a previous raid, or rather at the time the raid was made at which he was convicted on September 6th that year, this liquor was then seized by the officers and that he could not be convicted of a second offense for possessing the liquor which the officers took possession of. The officers testify they did on a former occasion find beer and took away all they found. The accused claims these two bottles were there at the time of the former raid, a part of that he was accused of possessing, and he did not know anything about this beer, did not know the beer was in the barrel.

Granting that he could not be convicted a second time, without disposing of that question, for liquor left in his possession that had been there and that of the same liquor officers had accused him of having at the former hearing, we do not think that question is in this ease. This barrel of wine, the testimony is that there was a seal of some kind which the officers placed to identify the liquor in the barrel, but the accused was drawing wine from this barrel. He had broken the seal and had the wine in the pitcher when he was found. Not only that, but there was plenty of evidence that he had immediately before the officers arrived intoxicating liquor in these rooms in the home, so that we do not have this question in this case. Even if this barrel of wine was part of the wine that the officer found on the former occasion, he broke the seal and w,as drawing it in the pitcher. In that way he had repossessed the wine so that he did have possession of intoxicating liquor, and the judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Roberts and Farr, JJ., concur.
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 25, 2011.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

____________

NO. 14-11-00326-CR

____________

EX PARTE OMAR TORRES

On Appeal from the 248th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1292812

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant is charged with the offense of capital murder. The trial court set bond at

$700,000. Appellant filed a pre-trial application for writ of habeas corpus seeking a bond 

reduction. The trial court denied appellant’s application for writ of habeas corpus and this 

appeal followed. On October 17, 2011, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal 

because he was convicted in cause number 1231114 on August 15, 2011. Appellant’s 

conviction renders the issue of pretrial bond moot. See Ex parte Morgan, 335 S.W.2d 

766, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960); Ex parte Bennet, 818 S.W.2d 199, 200 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, no pet.) (stating that “where the premise of a habeas 

corpus application is destroyed by subsequent developments, the legal issues raised 

thereunder are rendered moot.”). 
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Brown, Boyce, and McCally.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of UC
Hub Group, Inc. for the quarter ending October 31, 2006, I, Larry Wilcox, Chief
Financial Officer of UC Hub Group, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

     1.     Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending October
31, 2006, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB
for the quarter ending October 31, 2006, fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of UC Hub Group,
Inc.

     Dated: January 12, 2007.

                                   /s/  Larry Wilcox
                                   --------------------------------------------
                                   Larry Wilcox, Chief Financial Officer of
                                   UC Hub Group, Inc.
#### Nicholas Peshniak et al., Appellants, v Marvin Kuritzky et al., Respondents.

[698 NYS2d 510]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (DiBlasi, J.), dated July 21,1998, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Nicholas Peshniak allegedly sustained injuries when he tripped and fell on a public sidewalk abutting the defendants’ property. The defendants’ papers, including the transcript of the deposition testimony of the defendant L. M. Steinhart, made out a prima facie case that the defendants did not create the condition or use the sidewalk for a special use *(see, Oquendo v City of New York,*238 AD2d 391). In opposition, the plaintiffs submitted only an attorney’s affirmation which failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see, Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 563). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman, Friedmann and H. Miller, JJ., concur.
----

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio, Division Ia, by order of that court of 22 April 2004 in the case of ‘La Cascina’ s.c.r.l. and Zilch s.r.l. v Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Economy and Finance, and Pedus Service P. Dussmann s.r.l. and Others

(Case C-226/04)

(2004/C 190/16)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of Division Ia of the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Regional Administrative Court, Lazio) of 22 April 2004, received at the Court Registry on 2 June 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of ‘La Cascina’ s.c.r.l. and Zilch s.r.l. v Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Economy and Finance and Pedus Service P. Dussmann s.r.l. and Others, on the following questions:

----

(1)OJ L 209 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.

----
----

----

I Meddelelser

Kommissionen

----

Euroens vekselkurs (1)

4. august 2004

(2004/C 198/01)

1 Euro= 

----

(1)

Kilde: Referencekurs offentliggjort af Den Europæiske Centralbank.

----
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 99


             LETTER TO THE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO TEMPORARY NOTE 3T


                              Brand Services, Inc.
                       15450 South Outer Highway 40, #270
                          Chesterfield, Missouri 63017
                                 (636) 519-1000





April 16, 2002



Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, D.C. 20549

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Pursuant to temporary note 3T, Brand Services, Inc has obtained a letter of
representation from Arthur Andersen stating that the December 31, 2001 audit,
for which their report was dated March 8, 2002, was subject to their quality
control system for the U. S. accounting and auditing practice to provide
reasonable assurance that the engagement was conducted in compliance with
professional standards, that there was appropriate continuity of Arthur Andersen
personnel working on the audit and availability of national office consultation.
Availability of personnel at foreign affiliates of Arthur Andersen was not
relevant to the audit.


Sincerely yours,
BRAND SERVICES, INC.


By: /s/   JEFFREY W. PETERSON
    -------------------------
         Jeffrey W. Peterson
         Vice President - Finance,
         Chief Financial Officer
#### STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY v GAFFORD

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No. 10599.

Decided January 27, 1930

Messrs. Gilbert Bettman, Arthur Krause and Raymond D. Mentzer, Esq., Cleveland, for State Bd of Pharmacy.

Messers. Dan Fishman, Esq., and Bernon, Mulligan, Keeley & Le Fever, Cleveland for Gafford.

VICKERY, PJ.

We have heard this case on the record, arguments of counsel and briefs, and while it is admitted in this case that Gafford was convicted of a felony, yet there is nothing in this record to show that he was not competent or was not a man of good character and fit to carry on his business as a pharmacist; and to deprive a man of the means of making his living by the only profession that he knows, seems to visit *123upon the offender a very drastic punishment. If there was anything in this record to show that this man was immoral or had been guilty of any conduct which would make him unfit for a pharmacist, it might be different; but on the contrary, the record in this, case shows that he is a man of good character and good habits and nothing is said in the record against his morals or against him in a professional way except that he plead guilty to a charge of. felony; that is of having liquor in his possession, or violating the liquor traffic law. While this is a serious offense and probably merited the punishment, we do not think it is so serious that a man should be forever deprived from making a living for himself and nis family in the profession that he is well adapted to fill unless, perforce, his misconduct has been with reference to his chosen profession, and that misconduct would show him either such a profession which, as already stated, incompetent or an unfit person to carry on

We think that the Board is trying to be the record fails to show in this case, unduly harsh in this matter and that feelmon Pleas Court in its decision. We think ing must have likewise controlled the Com-that the Board abused its discretion in refusing to grant this man, under the circumstances in this case, a renewal license, and we think that the Court of Common Pleas committed no error in holding as it did.

The judgment of the Common Pleas Court will, therefore, be affirmed.

Sullivan and Levine, JJ., concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KIER KEAND ’E GARDNER, AKA Chris

Gardner,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

WHATCOM COUNTY; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 20

- 35794

D.C. No. 2:19

- cv

- 01451

- MJP

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Marsha J. Pechman, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 19 , 2021 * *

Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Washington state prisoner Kier Keand’e Gardner appeals pro se from the

district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

constitutional violations arising from his pretria l detention . We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s summary judgment

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUL 29 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 35794

for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Albino v. Baca , 747 F.3d 1162,

1168 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Gardner

failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and failed to raise a genuine dispute

of material fact as to whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable.

See Woodford v. Ngo , 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006) (proper exhaustion requires “using

all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so properly (so that the agency

addresses the issues on the merits)” (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted)); see also FTC v. Neovi, Inc. , 604 F.3d 1150, 1159 (9th C ir. 2010) ( “[A

court] need not find a genuine issue of fact if, in its determination, the particular

declaration was uncorroborated and self

- serving.”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Gardner’s motion

for reconsideration because Gardner failed to establish any basis for relief . See

Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc. , 5 F.3d 1255, 1262

- 63

(9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)).

Gardner’s motion to supplement the record (Docket Entry No. 24) is denied.

AFFIRMED.
#### § 2400.1 Purpose and scope.

This part provides procedures to implement the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a. It is applicable only to records that are maintained by the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC or the Commission), which includes all systems of records operated by an entity on behalf of OSHRC, pursuant to a contract, to accomplish an agency function. For purposes of this part, such contractors do not include any consumer reporting agency to which a record is disclosed under 31 U.S.C. 3711(e). This part does not affect discovery in adversary proceedings before the Commission. Discovery is governed by the Commission's Rules of Procedures in 29 CFR part 2200, subpart D.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tyrone Rudolph, Appellant.

[698 NYS2d 912]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Tisch, J.), rendered November 22, 1994, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts) and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress identification testimony and statements made by him to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the failure of the Supreme Court to make findings of fact pursuant to CPL 710.60 (4) does not require reversal where the record of the hearing is sufficient for this Court to make such findings *(see, People v Matthews,*222 AD2d 457; *People v Scott,*168 AD2d 523). The record supports the conclusion that the defendant’s statements to the police were voluntary and that the police identification procedures were not suggestive.

The Supreme Court did not err in denying the defendant’s challenge for cause to a juror who indicated, in response to the defense counsel’s questioning, that she believed the defendant *569had an obligation to testify. A challenge for cause pursuant to CPL 270.20 (1) (b) is based upon allegations of “actual bias” (see, *People v Torpey,*63 NY2d 361, 367). When the court advised the juror that an adverse inference may not be drawn against the defendant if he does not testify, the juror responded “Yes, your Honor”. Under the circumstances, the juror’s response did not constitute actual bias, and the court properly refused to excuse the juror for cause *(see, People v Hernandez,*222 AD2d 696; *People v Archer,*210 AD2d 241).

The defendant’s *pro se*motion to dismiss the indictment on constitutional speedy trial grounds *(see,*CPL 30.20) was properly denied *(see, People v Taranovich,*37 NY2d 442).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental *pro se*brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Office of the Secretary 

The following Agreements were filed with the Department of Transportation under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. Sections 412 and 414. Answers may be filed within 21 days after the filing of the applications. 

*Docket Number:*                     OST-2000-7333.                 

*Date Filed:*                     May 4, 2000.                 

*Parties:*                     Members of the International Air Transport Association.                 

*Subject:*                     PTC12 NMS-ME 0105 dated 18 April 2000, North Atlantic-Middle East Resolution 002L, Special Readopting/Amending Resolution,  between Canada, Mexico, USA and Middle East, Intended effective date: 31 May 2000.                 

*Docket Number:*                     OST-2000-7334.                 

*Date Filed:*                     May 4, 2000.                 

*Parties:*                     Members of the International Air Transport Association.                 

*Subject:*                     PTC12 NMS-ME 0106 dated 18 April 2000, North Atlantic-Middle East Resolutions r1-r18, PTC12 NMS-ME 0110 dated 20 April 2000 (Technical Correction), PTC12 NMS-ME 0107 dated 18 April 2000, North Atlantic-Israel Resolution r19-r37, Minutes—PTC12 NMS-ME 0109 dated 20 April 2000, Tables—PTC12 NMS-ME FARES 0057 dated 20 April 2000, Intended effective date: 1 June 2000.                 

Andrea M. Jenkins, 

Federal Register Liaison.

[FR Doc. 00-12557  Filed 5-17-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE  4910-62-P
Exhibit 11.
<TABLE>

 Statement Regarding Computation of Per Share Earnings

 For the periods ended June 30
<CAPTION>

                                                2nd Qtr.                    Six months
                                          1999            1998             1999         1998

 Diluted earnings per common share:
<S>                                   <C>            <C>             <C>            <C>
   Average common shares outstanding     643,053          106,386        500,732        106,386


 Net income (loss) .................   $ (256,550)    $    3,604     $   (14,949)   $    10,910

 Diluted earnings (loss) per share:   $     (0.40)   $      0.03     $     (0.03)   $      0.10
 Basic earnings (loss) per share:     $     (0.40)   $      0.03     $     (0.03)   $      0.10

</TABLE>
### Why Youth Join Gangs 

This video presentation features gang researchers, practitioners, and young people who were previously involved in gangs. Learn about research regarding gang joining, as well as firsthand insights into the behaviors and the circumstances that you might observe when interacting with youth who are at high risk of joining a gang.

Resources and Bibliography
#### STATE ex SCHWAB, Pros. Atty. v PRICE et

Ohio Supreme Court

No. 21658.

Decided June 12, 1929

Syllabus by

ALLEN, J.

CORPORATIONS

(160 Q) The rules and regulations of an Ohio corporation, made pursuant to 8704 GC not in contravention of any other statutory provisions, have all the force of contracts as between the corporation and its members and as between the membex-s themselves, and provisions of such regulations stating the number of stockholders constituting a quorum are valid and bixxding. (State, ex rel. Webber, *379v. Shaw et al., 103 Ohio St. 660, approved and followed.)

When the regulations of a corporation provide that “Three-fifths of all the stockholders shali constitute a quorum,” the word “stockholders” means stockholders per capita and not stockholders in interest.

Jones, Matthias and Day, JJ., concur.