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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6744

RICHARD LEE HAYWOOD,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

DONALD GUILLORY, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief

District Judge. (CA-95-1161)

Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: August 6, 1996

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard Lee Haywood, Appellant. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant

Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988), as

amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996,

Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1217. In his petition, Appellant

raised the following claims: (1) his attempted murder and malicious

wounding convictions violate the Double Jeopardy Clause; (2) his

indictments were defective; (3) his arraignment was improperly

conducted; and (4) there was insufficient evidence to support his

conviction for breaking and entering, first degree murder, and

abduction. We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion and find no reversible error as to the dismissal of claims

(1) and (2). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability

and dismiss these claims on the reasoning of the district court.

Haywood v. Guillory, No. CA-95-1161 (E.D. Va. Apr. 11, 1996).

Upon further review, we find claim (3) and all but the

breaking and entering count in claim (4) to be non-exhausted and

procedurally defaulted under the rule in Slayton v. Parrigan, 205

S.E.2d 680 (Va. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1108 (1975). Turning

then to the only remaining claim, we find that, taking the evidence

adduced at trial and its logical inferences in the light most

favorable to the Government, a reasonable fact-finder could have

found Appellant guilty of violating Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-92 (Michie

1995 Supp.) beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-
3

ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
No. 53640.

protests 127467-K, etc. (New York).

#### British West Indies Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of sisal handbags similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Goldberg & Seltzer, Inc.*(36 C. C. P. A. 64, C. A. D. 399), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT L. DOUGLAS, No. CIV S-04-2664 MCE GGH P

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER

D.L. RUNNELS, Warden,

Defendant.

________________________/

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed

this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No.

262.

On April 8, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and

recommendations herein which were served on plaintiff and which

contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings

and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. 

///

Case 2:04-cv-02664-MCE -GGH Document 4 Filed 05/27/05 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings and

recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and

recommendations to be supported by the record and by the

magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

that: 

1. The findings and recommendations filed April 8, 2005,

are adopted in full; and

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice. See Local

Rule 11-110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

DATED: May 27, 2005

___________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02664-MCE -GGH Document 4 Filed 05/27/05 Page 2 of 2
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-14-00878-CR

No. 04-14-00879-CR

Matthew Douglas HAYES,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR10841W

Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE ANGELINI, AND JUSTICE PULLIAM

In accordance with this court’s opinion issued this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. It is 

ORDERED that no costs shall be assessed against appellant in relation to this appeal because he 

qualifies as an indigent under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.1.

SIGNED June 10, 2015.

_____________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA- 2012 - 1162 Directorate Identifier: 2012NM002AD

A330 - 56 - 3009, R01 --- 1/27/11 A330 - 56 - 3009 --- 5/4/10 A340 - 56 - 4008 --- 5/4/10 A340 - 56 - 5002 --- 5/4/10

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 0 3/05/2008
Opinion issued November 24 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 15 - 00906 - CV

——————————— RITA LEMONS , Appella nt

V. ASSOCIATION OF TEXAS SCHOOL BOARD, INC. , Appell e e

On Appeal from the 151st District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 2000 - 34109D
MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Rita Lemons , has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. More than ten days have elapsed since the filing of the motion, and no party has objected to dismissal. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 10.3(a). No opinion has issued in this appeal.2

Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.1(a)(1). We dismiss any other pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justice s Jennings, Keyes, and Bland
.
1

The Honorable Daniel Hovland, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the District of North Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2873

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* District of North Dakota.

Ryan J. Pflug, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 7, 2004

Filed: January 23, 2004 

___________

Before RILEY, McMILLIAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Ryan Pflug pleaded guilty to distributing marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a)(1), and being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation

of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). The district court1

 sentenced him to 51

months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release. 
-2-

On appeal Pflug’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence was too harsh

and that the district court failed to assure that a factual basis existed to support the

felon-in-possession charge. These arguments, however, fall within the scope of an

appeal waiver contained in Pflug’s plea agreement; Pflug voluntarily and knowingly

entered into the plea agreement and the waiver; and enforcement of the waiver will

not result in a miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, we enforce the waiver. See

United States v. Woods, 346 F.3d 815, 817-18 (8th Cir. 2003). 

Having found in our independent review no nonfrivolous issues not covered

by the waiver, see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we affirm, and we grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________
D
|  | **BOOKS** |
|--|-----------|
|  |
|  |

----

| **Links to other titles**
**Other Books**              - author index- title index

**CADRE Papers**              - author index- title index

**Fairchild Papers**              - author index- title index

**SAASS Theses**              - author index              - title index

**Maxwell Papers** *              - index

**Wright Flyer Papers** *              - index

* Available as downloads in PDF format only.

Distribution Policy**About this                title**
**!Temporarily Out of Stock!**
Professional Military Education for Air                Force Officers: Comments and CriticismsRichard L. Davis and Frank P. Donnini
1991, 136 pages                ISBN: 1-58566-039-6                $9.00                
                                download
The authors survey the many evaluations made between 1946                and 1987 of the Air University's attempts to provide effective professional                military education (PME) for US Air Force officers. Colonels Davis and Donnini                discuss the purpose of PME from a USAF perspective and trace the evolution of                Air Force PME and the curricula of the AU schools. The authors also offer                observations about the education of officers, particularly with regard to                commentary that has gradually evolved and may be styled a "doctrine"                of PME.

Next Title | Previous Title | AU                Press Home

**What do you think**? E-mail your comments about this title to Air                University Press 
  |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
##### 



SECURED CONVERTIBLE
PROMISSORY NOTE
 Orange County, CaliforniaOriginal Principal Amount: U.S. $
    
    Issuance Date:
 
 1. Payments .
 2. Security Interest .




---



##### 



3. Power of Attorney .
 4. Waivers
 5. Default .
     6. Change of Control
  2




---



##### 



7. Qualified Equity Financing .
  3




---



##### 



8. No Deduction or Offset
 9. Binding Nature
 10. Prepayment
 11. Conversion .
  4




---



##### 



12. Transfer .
 13. Note Register
 14. Loss, Etc., of Note
 15. California Law
 16. Interpretation
 17. No Waiver by Holder
  5




---



##### 



18. Costs of Enforcement
 19. Severability
 20. Cumulative Rights
 21. Usury Savings .
 22. Counterparts.
  PACIFIC FUEL CELL CORP.By:
    /s/ George SuzukiGeorge SuzukiPresident & CEO  6
**Exhibit 31(b)**

CERTIFICATION

I, Lamont Thomas, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on 10-KSB ofCommerceFirst Bancorp, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

4. The small business issuer’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small businessissuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small businessissuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions 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 smallbusiness issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the smallbusiness issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, thesmall business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small businessissuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting.
| Date: March 12, 2007 |   | /s/ Lamont  Thomas           |   |
|----------------------|--------|------------------------------|--------|
|                 |   | Lamont Thomas                |
|                 |   | Executive Vice President and |
|                 |   | Chief Financial  Officer     |

 

----
Memo to Docket 

Subject: Call Between Freeport McMoRan Miami Inc. (FMMI)

Date: May 21, 2014

Participants:

Summary: 

This call was requested by FMMI to discuss certain technical issues related to the proposed rule. 

EPA and FMMI discussed the following:

 Verifying which units and control devices were subject to the 99.7% performance 

standard

 Alternate method of measuring inlet sulfur for secondary capture control device

 FMMI discussed construction schedules and reiterated request for a compliance date four 

years from publication of final rule

Name: Organization:

Chris West Freeport-McMoRan

Jeff Harrington AMEC (FMMI contractor)

Margaret Peloso Vinson & Elkins (outside counsel)

Jay Spehar Freeport-McMoRan

Todd Weaver Freeport-McMoRan

Eugene Chen EPA R9 

Geoffrey Glass EPA R9

Charlotte Withey EPA R9
<PAGE>



                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

         In connection with the Form 10-K of Virginia Commerce Bancorp, Inc. for
the year ended December 31, 2005, I, Peter A. Converse , Chief Executive Officer
of Virginia Commerce Bancorp, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the
best of my knowledge and belief, that:

(1) such Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005, 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 Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2005, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Virginia Commerce Bancorp, Inc.


/s/ Peter A. Converse
----------------------------------
Peter A. Converse
Chief Executive Officer
#### Etta Armstrong *v.*William A. Cummings.

—Motion granted that the plaintiff pay over the amount of costs as directed in opinion, without costs. Opinion *Per Curiam,.*
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

February 8, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 135677 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. In re THOMAS JAMES KLANK, Stephen J. Markman, KYLEIGH CHRISTINE KLANK, and Justices
 

ALYSSA MACKENZIE KLANK, Minors. 

_________________________________________/ 

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,

Petitioner-Appellee, 

v SC: 135677 

 COA: 277826 
 Oakland CC Family 

BAMBI NICOLE KUTTKUHN, Division: 04-689348-NA 

Respondent, 

and 

DANIEL JAMES KLANK, 

Respondent-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 27, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d0205 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

February 8, 2008 

 Clerk
No. 57379.

protest 177345-K (New York).

#### Cathay Crafts Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of brass smoothing irons and other trays similar in alt material respects to those involved in *Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(28 Cust. Ct. 280, C. D. 1423) and *The Fan Co.*v. *United States*(25 Cust. Ct. 42). C. D. 1261), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The undersigned, Yangkan Chong, the
Chief Executive Officer of CHINA NEW ENERGY GROUP COMPANY (the “Company”), DOES
HEREBY CERTIFY that:





1.
            The
      Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September
      30, 2009 (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
  and





2.
            Information
      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operation of the
    Company.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has
executed this statement this 14th   day
of November, 2009.


/s/ Yangkan
      ChongYangkan
      ChongChief Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)


A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
China New Energy Group Company and will be retained by China New Energy Group
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.





The
forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.  It is not being
filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.
Consumer Alert

Federal Trade Commission ■ Bureau of Consumer Protection ■ Office of Consumer and Business Education

HOME-USE TESTS FOR HIV CAN BE INACCURATE,

FTC WARNS

June 1999

I

f youve tested yourself at home for HIV  Human Immunodeficiency Virus,

the virus that causes AIDS  you may want to do it again. According to the

Federal Trade Commission, some home-use test kits can give users false

information about their HIV status.

The FTC recently tested HIV kits advertised and sold on the Internet for self

diagnosis at home. In every case, the kits showed a negative result when used on a

known HIV-positive sample  that is, when they should have shown a positive

result. Using one of these kits could give a person who might be infected with HIV

the false impression that he or she is not infected.

Although Internet ads for these home-use kits may say they are for sale outside the

U.S. only, consumers in the U.S. have been able to purchase these kits. Some ads

state or imply that the kits have been approved by the World Health Organization

(WHO) or a similarly well-known health organization, or that the home-use test

kits have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

WHO does not approve or license HIV test kits. The FDA has not approved any

home-use HIV test kit for sale in the U.S. However, the FDA has approved one

HIV home collection test system for sale in the U.S.  the Home Access Express

HIV-1 Test System. Manufactured by Home Access Health Corporation, this home

system allows consumers to collect the sample in the privacy of their home, then

requires that the sample be sent to a laboratory for analysis.

Safe, reliable HIV testing can be done only through a medical professional or a

clinic, or through use of the Home Access Express HIV-1 Test System, says the

FTC.

#