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UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,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. 96-4490 WAYNE MCDOUGALL, a/k/a Jamal, a/k/a Winthrop McDougall, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (CR-95-249) Submitted: December 12, 1996 Decided: December 24, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL J. Matthew Martin, MARTIN & MARTIN, P.A., Hillsborough, North Carolina, for Appellant. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Clifton T. Barrett, Assistant United States Attorney, Laura M. Wolfe, Third Year Law Student, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Wayne McDougall pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 846 (West Supp. 1996). Citing the 1995 Annual Report of the United States Sentencing Commission,McDougall claims on appeal, as he did below, that the 100-to-1 statutory ratio for cocaine powder and crack offenses is arbitrary, racially discriminatory, and denies him his right to due process because of its disparate impact on African-American defendants. The district court denied the objection, and sentenced McDougall to 188 months' imprisonment, a term of five years' supervised release, and a special assessment of $50. This Court has considered this claim many times before,* and wedecline to revisit our prior decisions holding that the disparity in sentencing between cocaine base and powder cocaine offenses is constitutionally permissible. While McDougall relies on Congress's directive to the United States Sentencing Commission to propose additional amendments to Guidelines, Congress did not adopt the Sentencing Commission's recommendation to eliminate or reduce the disparity. See United States v. Hayden , 85 F.3d 153, 157-58 (4th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, we decline McDougall's invitation to reconsider this issue. 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

_________________________________________________________________ *United States v. Fisher , 58 F.3d 96, 98-100 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , ___ U.S. ___, 64 U.S.L.W. 3270 (U.S. Oct. 10, 1995) (No. 95-5923); United States v. D'Anjou , 16 F.3d 604, 612 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , ___ U.S. ___, 62 U.S.L.W. 3861 (U.S. June 27, 1994) (No. 93-9131); United States v. Bynum , 3 F.3d 769, 774-75 (4th Cir. 1993), cert. denied , 510 U.S. 1132 (1994); United States v. Thomas , 900 F.2d 37, 38-40 (4th Cir. 1990). 2
No. P67/387.

#### A. L. Liebman & Sons, Inc. *v.*United States, protest 64/10482 (New York).

Landis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items of merchandise marked “A,” invoiced as drawer locks Nos. 305 and' 306, covered by the foregoing protest consist of cabinet locks, not of *904.pin tumbler or cylinder construction, not over 11⁄2 inches in width, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Shriro Trading Corp.*v. *United States*(56 Cust. Ct. 422, C.D. 2669) ; and that the items of merchandise marked “B,” invoiced as brass pushlocks No. 106, are neither cabinet locks nor padlocks but consist of other locks not of pin tumbler or cylinder construction, composed in chief value of brass, the claims of the plaintiff were sustained.
No. 67663.

#### The Rieser Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 59/24422 (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of nylon hair nets similar in use to manufactures of silk and following the principles set forth in *United States*v. *Sternberg Bros.*(47 CCPA 47, C.A.D. 727), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained, except as to entry B. 71726, which was withdrawn from warehouse after September 13, 1958, the effective date of the enactment of T.D. 54676.
106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 232

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress concerning

the safety and well-being of United States citizens injured while traveling in Mexico.

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 232

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas hundreds of United States citizens travel by automobile to Mexico every day;

Whereas United States automobile insurance in not valid in

Mexico and travellers may purchase additional insurance

to cover potential liability or injury while in Mexico;

Whereas in cases where additional insurance is not purchased

and a United States citizen is involved in an automobile
2

•HCON 232 EH

accident, the American will be subject to a bond requirement before being permitted to return to the United

States; and

Whereas in a recent incident, a United States citizen injured

in an automobile accident in Mexico was not transferred

to a United States hospital for 18 hours, even after medical personnel in Mexico recommended his immediate

transfer to the United States for emergency treatment,

until the family posted the bond set by Mexican authorities: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that, in

3 order to protect the safety and well-being of United States

4 citizens travelling in Mexico, the President should con5 tinue to negotiate with the Government of Mexico to estab6 lish procedures, including a humanitarian exemption to

7 Mexican bond requirements, to ensure the expedited re8 turn of United States citizens injured in Mexico to the

9 United States for medical treatment, if necessary.

Passed the House of Representatives July 24, 2000.

Attest:

Clerk.
106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 302

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Calling on the people of the United States to observe a National Moment of Remembrance to

honor the men and women of the United Stateswho died in the pursuit of freedom and peace.

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 302

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas the preservation of basic freedoms and world peace

has always been a valued objective of this nation;

Whereas thousands of American men and women have selflessly given their lives in service as peacemakers and

peacekeepers;
2

•HCON 302 EH

Whereas greater strides should be made to demonstrate appreciation for these loyal Americans and the ultimate sacrifice they each made;

Whereas Memorial Day is an appropriate day to remember

American heroes by inviting the people of the United

States to honor these heroes at a designated time;

Whereas Memorial Day needs to be made relevant to both

present and future generations of Americans; and

Whereas a National Moment of Remembrance each Memorial

Day at 3:00 p.m., local time, would provide the people of

the United States an opportunity to participate in a symbolic act of American unity: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress—

3 (1) calls on the people of the United States to

4 observe a National Moment of Remembrance to

5 honor the men and women of the United States who

6 died in the pursuit of freedom and peace; and

7 (2) requests that the President issue a procla8 mation calling on the people of the United States to

9 observe such a National Moment of Remembrance.

Passed the House of Representatives May 22, 2000.

Attest:

Clerk.
Case Mo. 9,628.

#### MINCHIN v. DOCKER.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 370.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Dec. Term, 1806.

Witness — Negko—Competency—Presumption.

1. A free black man, bora of £t white woman, is a competent witness against a white man.

2. Evidence that a black man has, for many years, publicly acted as a free man, and been generally reputed to be free, rebuts the presumption of slavery arising from color, and is evidence that he was born of a white woman. .

Slander.

Charles Cavender, a black man, was admitted to testify for the plaintiff, after witnesses had been examined by the court on oath, and testified that Charles had acted publicly for eleven years as a free man, and was generally reputed as such.

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]

DUCKETT, Circuit Judge,

said that persons bom free, that is, descended from a white woman, were not, in Maryland, held to be ne-groes; and were permitted to testify against white persons. And although color is prima facie evidence of slavery, yet the fact that the witness had, for a long time, publicly acted as free, turned the presumption the other way, and was prima facie evidence that he was born of a white woman.

CRANCH. Chief .Judge,, concurred.

PITZHUGH, Circuit Judge, absent.

See Acts Assem. Md. 1717, c. 13, § 2, and Acts 1796, c. 67, § 5.
Exhibit 10.10

[Essential Innovations Technology Corp. letterhead]

                                February 27, 2003

                              Letter of Agreement

Re:      Agreement Between Morpheus Financial Corporation and Essential
         Innovations Technology Corp.

As of the date of this letter, Essential Innovations Technology Corp., has an
outstanding shareholders loan due to Morpheus Financial Corporation.

In reference to the above outstanding shareholders loan and as of the date of
this Letter of Agreement, Morpheus Financial Corporation hereby agrees to
convert, $72,645 USD, which comprises all, but a remaining $30,000 loan with a
flat 12% interest rate equaling $33,600 USD, of the outstanding shareholders
loan made to EI Tech, into EITC common shares at the price of $0.25/ share.

Following this conversion Morpheus Financial Corporation agrees that EITC will
now owe them the total sum of $33,600 USD, and that they will be issued a share
certificate in the amount of 290,580 common shares of Essential Innovations
Technology Corp., as conversion for payment of the other $72,645 USD owing to
this from EITC. This is to be a legally binding document.




/s/ Jason McDiarmid                                /s/
---------------------------------------           ------------------------------
Authorized Signatory                               Authorized Signatory
Essential Innovations Technology Corp.             MorpheusFinancial Corporation
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

MERLE L. ROYSE,

Petitioner,

v.

BELINDA STEWART,

Respondent.

Case No. C06-5440FDB

ORDER DENYING

RECONSIDERATION

The Court adopted the Report and Recommendation that this matter was second and

successive and this matter was transferred to the Ninth Circuit. Petitioner’s moves for

reconsideration, but his arguments do not convince the Court to reconsider its decision. 

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED: Petitioner’s Motion for Rehearing [Dkt. # 13] is

DENIED. 

DATED this 27th day of November, 2006.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05440-FDB Document 14 Filed 11/27/06 Page 1 of 1
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-83,109-01

EX PARTE ROBERT FARREN YORK, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 12483-A IN THE 77 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM LIMESTONE COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of prohibited sexual

conduct and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. He did not appeal his conviction. 

Applicant contends that his plea was involuntary because trial counsel did not challenge the

prosecution as time-barred based on the statute of limitations. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 12.01

(West 2006). Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. In these

circumstances, additional facts are needed. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez, 334 S.W.2d 294, 294

(Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the appropriate forum for findings of fact. The trial court
2

may use any means set out in TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d). In the appropriate case, the

trial court may rely on its personal recollection. Id.

If the trial court elects to hold a hearing, it shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. 

If Applicant is indigent and wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an

attorney to represent Applicant at the hearing. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. 

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law in regard to Applicant’s

claim that counsel erred in not raising limitations, and that this alleged error caused Applicant’s

guilty plea to be involuntary. The trial court shall also make any other findings of fact and

conclusions of law that it deems relevant and appropriate to the disposition of Applicant’s claim for

habeas corpus relief.

This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The

issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time shall

be obtained from this Court. 

Filed: May 20, 2015

Do not publish
Before the First Division

March 15, 1961

No. 65309.

#### Hudson Shipping Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 59/13429 (New York).

The following memorandum accompanied the order restoring case to calendar:

Mollison, Judge:

The protest in the above-entitled matter was received by this court on May 5, 1959, and, in accordance with the rules of the court, appeared on the regular calendar of this division on December 7, 1959. At that time, it was, at the request of counsel for the plaintiff, continued to the February 1960 term of this division for final disposition. At the call of the Feb*381ruary 1960 calendar, it was further continued, at the request of counsel for the plaintiff, to the May term for final disposition.

Prior to the call of the calendar of the May term, counsel for the plaintiff prepared a stipulation concerning the facts of the matter and presented the same to counsel for the defendant, who thereupon requested, pursuant to rule 12(a) of the rules of this court, that the papers be forwarded to the collector of customs at New York, N.Y., for the purpose of considering the stipulation. This was done, and, when the case was called on the calendar of the May term of this court, further continuance was requested by counsel for the plaintiff to the October term pending the return of the stipulation, which request was granted.

The papers were returned by the collector to this court on October 7, 1960, but the original stipulation was apparently not acceptable to one or both parties, for, on November 7, 1960, another request was made by counsel for the defendant that, pursuant to rule 12(a), *supra,*the papers again be forwarded to the collector for the purpose of considering a stipulation. This request was granted, and the papers were returned to this court on January 5, 1961, and, on January 24, 1961, a stipulation signed by counsel for both parties was presented to the court and ordered filed on January 25,1961.

From the foregoing calendar record and the conditions under which the case was continued from time to time, it was considered to be implicit that, upon the filing of the stipulation signed by counsel for the parties, the case had been submitted for decision, and the court proceeded to determine the issues on the record before it, rendering its decision and judgment in the matter on March 2, 1961 (Abstract 65215).

It has now. been made to appear to the court that counsel for neither party had formally submitted the case for decision in writing. Under these circumstances, order will issue vacating and setting aside the decision and judgment of March 2, 1961, and restoring the case to the May 1961 calendar of this division of the court for final disposition.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 153 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 153

     Expressing the sense of the Congress that Federal funding for 
  elementary and secondary teacher training be used first for science 
          scholarships for elementary and secondary teachers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 13, 1999

   Mr. Gary Miller of California submitted the following concurrent 
 resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on Science, for a period to 
      be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
     Expressing the sense of the Congress that Federal funding for 
  elementary and secondary teacher training be used first for science 
          scholarships for elementary and secondary teachers.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that all local educational 
agencies receiving Federal funding for elementary and secondary teacher 
training or certification are encouraged to use such funding first for 
science scholarships for teachers.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION FURNISHED 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 SWS Group, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Donald W. Hultgren, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 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: November 9, 2005 |  | /S/ Donald W. Hultgren 
|                       |  | Donald W. Hultgren     
|                       |  | Chief Executive Officer
# Official Journal C 269/2008

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 269 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5124 October 2008 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 269

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5124 October 2008

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2008/C 269/01 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2008/C 269/01

Euro exchange rates

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY |
| | Commission |
| 2008/C 269/02 | State aid — Spain — State aid C 23/08 (ex N 281/07) — Aid for J. García Carrión La Mancha, SA — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty | 2 |
| 2008/C 269/03 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5359 — Tessenderlo Chemie/SPV/IPCHL/T-Power JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 10 |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | Commission |
| 2008/C 269/04 | Publication of an application pursuant to Article 8(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 on agricultural products and foodstuffs as traditional specialities guaranteed | 11 |
| 2008/C 269/05 | Publication of an application pursuant to Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs | 16 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY

Commission

2008/C 269/02

State aid — Spain — State aid C 23/08 (ex N 281/07) — Aid for J. García Carrión La Mancha, SA — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty

2

2008/C 269/03

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5359 — Tessenderlo Chemie/SPV/IPCHL/T-Power JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

10

OTHER ACTS

Commission

2008/C 269/04

Publication of an application pursuant to Article 8(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 on agricultural products and foodstuffs as traditional specialities guaranteed

11

2008/C 269/05

Publication of an application pursuant to Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs

16

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2008/C 269/06 | Note to the reader(see page 3 of the cover) | s3 |

2008/C 269/06

Note to the reader(see page 3 of the cover)

Note to the reader

s3

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN