alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 17-14742

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:17-cr-00007-LJA-TQL-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SCOTT GWALTNEY, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

________________________

(March 22, 2019)

Before MARTIN, JILL PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Alfreda L. Sheppard, appointed counsel for Scott Gwaltney in this direct 

criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the 

Case: 17-14742 Date Filed: 03/22/2019 Page: 1 of 2 
2

appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of 

the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the 

entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is 

GRANTED, and Gwaltney’s conviction and sentence is AFFIRMED.

Case: 17-14742 Date Filed: 03/22/2019 Page: 2 of 2
TS- EMLA50 /60/70/80

Attachment #7

Pt. 2, Sec. B, 1a

Processing Information on the New Chemical Substance at Industrial Sites Controlled

by OthersAttachment # 7

**Manufacturing and Processing Information on the New Chemical**

**Substance at Industrial Sites Controlled by**  **Others** TS

- EMLA50/60/70/80
facilitated the district court in sentencing him predicated on an incorrect

understanding of law. Specifically, he contends that the district court's reliance on the prosecutor's mistake of law worked to his extreme detriment because he would have been eligible for parole after 6 years if the sentence agreed upon in the plea agreement had been imposed.

While the prosecutor's comments concerning the application of release credits was erroneous, see NRS 202.285(1)(b) (discharging a firearm at or into a structure); NRS 202.287(1)(b) (discharging a firearm out of a motor vehicle); NRS 205.010 (first-degree arson); NRS 209.4465(7), (8) (credits on terms of imprisonment), we conclude that the prosecutor's comments did not amount to a breach of the plea agreement where she merely responded to a query by the district court, see United States v. Block, 660 F.2d 1086, 1091 (5th Cir. 1981) ("Efforts by the Government to provide relevant factual information or to correct misstatements are not tantamount to taking a position on the sentence and will not violate the plea agreement"), and she expressly argued in favor of a 6-year minimum sentence in accordance with the plea agreement. Moreover, the record does not show that the incorrect information influenced the district court's sentencing decision. In sentencing appellant, the district court noted that "it's because of the toxic nature of this bizarre criminal behavior, that I have concluded that you do not fall within the minimum set forth in our statute"; the district court further explained, "I don't believe that the maximum is appropriate . . . because of the lack of history, and the probable nature of mental-health deficits." From these comments, the district court's decision appears to have been based on the nature of the offenses and the defendant's character and unrelated to release credits.

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA

(0) I947A 2Having considered appellant's arguments and concluded that

no relief is warranted, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.'

,J. Hardesty

cc: Hon. David A. Hardy, District Judge Dennis A. Cameron Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

'Despite counsel's verification that the fast track statement complies with the formatting requirements of NRAP 32(a)(4), the fast track statement does not comply because it is not double-spaced. 

### See NRAP 3C(h)(1). We caution appellant's counsel that future failure to comply with the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure when filing briefs with this court may result in the imposition of sanctions. 

### See NRAP 3C(n); NRAP 28.2(b).

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A • 1 3
No. 67715.

#### Guy F. Atkinson Company *v.*United States,

protest 62/5508 (San Francisco).

*298Opinion by

Rao, J.

Since the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, it was dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
IV

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 442

Providing for a conditional adjournment of the House of Representatives

and a conditional recess or adjournment of the Senate.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 14, 2000

Mr. ARMEY submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

considered and agreed to

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for a conditional adjournment of the House of

Representatives and a conditional recess or adjournment

of the Senate.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legisla3 tive day of Tuesday, November 14, 2000, or Wednesday,

4 November 15, 2000, on a motion offered pursuant to this

5 concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his des6 ignee, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday, Decem7 ber 4, 2000, or until noon on the second day after Mem8 bers are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of

9 this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; and that

10 when the Senate recesses or adjourns at the close of busi-
2

HCON 442 ATH

1 ness on Tuesday, November 14, 2000, or Wednesday, No2 vember 15, 2000, on a motion offered pursuant to this

3 concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his des4 ignee, it stand recessed or adjourned until noon on Tues5 day, December 5, 2000, or until such time on that day

6 as may be specified by its Majority Leader or his designee

7 in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until noon on the

8 second day after Members are notified to reassemble pur9 suant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever

10 occurs first.

11 SEC. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority

12 Leader of the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with

13 the Minority Leader of the House and the Minority Lead14 er of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the House

15 and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble whenever, in

16 their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

Æ
(function ($, once) {
  'use strict';

  const targetClass = '.sidebar_menu_parent';
  const classToToggle = 'expanded';
  const ariaExpanded = 'aria-expanded';

  function toggleClassEvent(){
    $(this).toggleClass(classToToggle);
    $(this).attr(ariaExpanded, true);
  }

  function init(){
    $(this).attr(ariaExpanded, false);
  }

  function addClickEvents(context){
    once('mobileMenuExpansionInit', targetClass, context).forEach(function(element){
      $(element).click(init);
    });
    once('mobileMenuExpansion', targetClass, context).forEach(function(element){
      $(element).click(toggleClassEvent);
    });
  }

  Drupal.behaviors.mobileMenuExpansion = {
    attach: function (context) {
      addClickEvents(context);
    }
  };
})(jQuery, once);
600

G E A N O B E A C H R D

C O T T A G E R D L A D E B E A C H R D

C O U N T Y H W Y-R D

S

R O S T R D

L O C U S T R D

G E A N O B E A C H R D

C O T T A G E R D L A D E B E A C H R D

C O U N T Y H W Y-R D

S

R O S T R D

L O C U S T R D

Little Suamico

River

Kirchner Creek

Tibbet Creek

Little Suamico River

Little Suamico

River

L A K E M I C H I G A N

G R E E N B A Y

Little

Tail

Point

Little

Tail

Point

Green

Bay East

Green

Bay West

Suamico

Pensaukee Oconto SE

Dyckesville

Abrams

New

Franken

87°

00'

44°

FEET

FEET

E

49

49

4 4

57'

44°

FEET

000

25

E 30

49

4

49

30"

340

520

000

30"

30"

42'

26

48

51

49

49

4

49

30"

55'

49

000m

42'

53

45

52

490

30"

47

43

21

00'

49

49

4

55' 52'

44°

88° 87°

49

46

24

30"

40'

49

000m

49

4

49

4

2

49

49

000 000m

27

23

42

29

49

22

30"

37'

30"

4

4

49

FEET

43

4

2

49

4 52'

45'

53

28

49

49

49

300

47

50

48

30 57'

000

45

4

49

23 4 25

50

54

49

27

4

54

46

52

44

37'

40'

45'

88°

44°

4

49

000m

4

4

49

49

42

22

44

26 29

28

4

49

55

N

N

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

WISCONSIN

ADJOINING 7.5' QUADRANGLES

QUADRANGLE LOCATION

LITTLE TAIL POINT, WI

2010

Interstate Route State Route

ROAD CLASSIFICATION

Interstate Route US Route State Route

Ramp 4WD

US Route Local Road

LITTLE TAIL POINT QUADRANGLE

WISCONSIN

7.5-MINUTE SERIES

Zone 16T

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and

1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator,

Produced by the United States Geological Survey

10 000-foot ticks: Wisconsin Coordinate System of 1983

(central zone)

Imagery.......................................................NAIP, July 2008

Roads..............................................©2006-2010 Tele Atlas

Names...............................................................GNIS, 2008

Hydrography.................National Hydrography Dataset, 2008

Contours............................National Elevation Dataset, 2008

1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

FEET

This map was produced to conform with version 0.5.10 of the

draft USGS Standards for 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Maps.

A metadata file associated with this product is draft version 0.5.11

SCALE 1:24 000

1 0.5 0 1

MILES

MN

1 0.5 0 KILOMETERS 1 2

GN

UTM GRID AND 2010 MAGNETIC NORTH DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET

0° 40 ́

12 MILS

3° 48 ́

68 MILS

U.S. National Grid

100,000-m Square ID

Grid Zone Designation

16T

DQ

CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET

NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988
<PAGE>   1

                                                                     EXHIBIT 12


                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                 (IN THOUSANDS)
                                   (UNAUDITED)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                  THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                        MARCH 31,
                                                               --------------------------
                                                                  1998            1999
                                                               ----------      ----------
<S>                                                            <C>             <C>        
Earnings:
     Loss before cumulative effect of a change in
          accounting principle ...........................     $  (92,372)     $  (51,758)
     Fixed charges, less interest capitalized ............         43,302          43,953
                                                               ----------      ----------
          Earnings .......................................     $  (49,070)     $   (7,805)
                                                               ==========      ==========

Fixed charges:
     Interest expense, including interest capitalized ....     $   40,245      $   40,499
     Amortization of deferred financing costs ............          1,112           1,117
     Interest portion of rental expense ..................          6,524           7,922
                                                               ----------      ----------
          Fixed charges ..................................     $   47,881      $   49,538
                                                               ==========      ==========

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges .......................           --              --
                                                               ==========      ==========
Deficiency of earnings available to cover fixed charges ..     $  (96,951)     $  (57,343)
                                                               ==========      ==========
</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EX PARTE: REGINAL C. GILBERT §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 22

- 00123

- C R

Appeal from the

142nd Judicial District Court

of Midland County, Texas

(TC# CR

- 57,536 )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be

dismissed as moot. We therefore dismiss the appeal as moot. This decision shall be certified below

for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2022.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Chief Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, J J.
**Exhibit 15**

August 11, 2008 

PC Connection, Inc. 

730Milford Road 

Merrimack, NH 

We have reviewed, in accordancewith the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the unaudited interim financial information of PC Connection, Inc. and subsidiaries for the periods ended June 30, 2008 and 2007, as indicated in our reportdated August 11, 2008; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information. 

We are aware that our report referred toabove, which is included in your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 is incorporated by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-40172, 333-50845, 333-50847, 333-66450, 333-69981, 333-83943, 333-91584,333-106652, 333-130389, and 333-144065 on Form S-8. 

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of1933, 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 of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act. 

Deloitte & Touche 

Boston, Massachusetts
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6604

ROGER EARL COLEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ERIC A. HOOKS; SGT. MR. LEWIS; OFFICER LOCKLEAR; MS. ALMOND,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. Joe L. Webster, Magistrate Judge. (1:18-cv-00361-TDS-JLW)

Submitted: August 23, 2018 Decided: August 28, 2018

Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roger Earl Coley, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Roger Earl Coley seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order and 

recommendation to deny in forma pauperis status and dismiss Coley’s action without 

prejudice. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 

(2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The 

order Coley seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or 

collateral order.∗

 See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2012); Woods v. Dahlberg, 894 F.2d 187, 

187 (6th Cir. 1990) (per curiam); Colo. Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. B.B. Andersen 

Constr. Co., 879 F.2d 809, 811 (10th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for 

lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

 ∗ Although the district court dismissed the action without prejudice before we 

considered this appeal, the doctrine of cumulative finality does not cure the jurisdictional 

defect. Houck v. Substitute Tr. Servs., Inc., 791 F.3d 473, 479 (4th Cir. 2015)

(recognizing that doctrine of cumulative finality applies only where order appealed could 

have been certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)); see In re Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 288 (4th 

Cir. 2005) (noting that “a premature notice of appeal from a clearly interlocutory 

decision” cannot be saved under doctrine of cumulative finality (internal quotation marks 

omitted)).
302 CERTIFICATION

I, W. Ross C. Corace, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed amendment 1 to the annual report on Form
10-KSB of MailTec, Inc.;

         2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual 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. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
12a-14) and internal controls over financial reporting (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and
have:

      a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report is
being prepared;

      b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing
date of this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

      c)  presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
effectiveness  of the disclosure  controls and procedures based on our
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

         5. 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 functions):

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

Date: October 31, 2006                /s/W. Ross C. Corace
                                   ----------------------------
                                   W. Ross C. Corace
                                   Chief Executive Officer
                                   Chief Financial Officer
Before the Third Division,

April 24, 1957

No. 60691.

#### Capitol Distributors Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 273265-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *482*United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 130, C. A. D. 508) and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION





I, William P. Horgan, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Human Pheromone Sciences, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly 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(s) 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 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 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 changes in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal 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(s) 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 function):



a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control 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 13, 2006





/s/ William P. Horgan

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-1757

In Re: MUZIO ROBERTO and MARY K. ROBERTO,

Debtors.

_________________________

MUZIO B. ROBERTO; MARY K. ROBERTO,

Debtors - Appellants,

versus

JOSEPH NAPOLI; MARION NAPOLI,

Creditors - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

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

(CA-98-4097-AW, BK-98-12440-PM, 98-A1445-PM, CA-99-35-AW)

Submitted: September 30, 1999 Decided: October 8, 1999

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Muzio B. Roberto, Mary K. Roberto, Appellants Pro Se. Matthew

Wilson Black, Jr., HEENEY, ARMSTRONG & HEENEY, Rockville, Maryland,

for Appellees.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Muzio and Mary Roberto appeal from the district court’s order

affirming the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing their complaint

to recover $102,000. Because the Robertos seek to set aside a

state court judgment, the bankruptcy court properly dismissed the

claim under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Rooker v. Fidelity

Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia Court of

Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). Accordingly, we affirm.

We deny the motions for sanctions and 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