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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6965

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHASE REMINGTON TICKLE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, 

Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:14-cr-00101-WO-1; 1:15-cv-00263-

WO-LPA)

Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 22, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chase Remington Tickle, Appellant Pro Se. Harry L. Hobgood, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Chase Remington Tickle seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order 

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 

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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the 

merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment 

of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 

U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on 

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the 

dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion 

states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 

Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Tickle 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 
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit  32.1
                                                                  -------------

                                 ALPHATRADE.COM
                              A Nevada corporation

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of AlphaTrade.com. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
PENNY PERFECT, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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.




         Dated: November 4, 2004                      /s/ Penny Perfect
                                                   ----------------------------
                                                   Its: Chief Executive Officer


         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
         other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
         signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of
         this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be
         retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
         Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing certifications are
         accompanying the Company's Form 10-QSB solely pursuant to section 906
         of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section
         1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being
         filed as part of the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.














                                Exhibit 32.1-1
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

________________________

No. ACM S32524

________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Jon F. SABEC

Airman First Class (E-3), U.S. Air Force, Appellant

________________________

Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary

Decided 26 March 2019

________________________

Military Judge: John C. Degnan.

Approved sentence: Bad-conduct discharge and confinement for 60 days. Sentence adjudged 23 March 2018 by SpCM convened at Joint Base McGuire-DixLakehurst, New Jersey.

For Appellant: Major Todd M. Swensen, USAF.

For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Joseph J. Kubler, USAF; Mary Ellen Payne, 

Esquire.

Before HUYGEN, MINK, and POSCH, Appellate Military Judges.

________________________

This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as 

precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4.

________________________

PER CURIAM:

The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles 
United States v. Sabec, No. ACM S32524

2

59(a) and 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c)

(2016). Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE

Clerk of the Court
EXHIBIT32.1

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, the undersigned ChiefExecutive Officer of Vion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the‘‘Company’’), hereby certify that the AnnualReport on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December31,  2005 (the ‘‘Report’’) fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

Date:March  16, 2006

|        |  |                                    |  |  |  |  |
|--------|--|------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|
|   |  | /s/ Alan Kessman                   |
|   |  | Alan KessmanChief ExecutiveOfficer |
|        |

----
Exhibit
23.1




CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




The
      Board of Directors


GSE
      Systems, Inc.




We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements No.
333-138702 and No. 333-150249 on Form S-8 and registration statements No.
333-161121, No. 333-147537, No. 333-144623, No. 333-143199, and No.
333-134569 on Form S-3 of GSE Systems, Inc. of our reports dated March
11, 2010, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of GSE Systems, Inc.
as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated statements
of operations, comprehensive income (loss), changes in stockholders’ equity and
cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,
2009, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as
of December 31, 2009, which reports appear in the December 31, 2009
Annual Report on Form 10-K of GSE Systems, Inc.







/s/ KPMG
LLP




Baltimore,
Maryland


March 11,
2010
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 18

- 00350

- CV

In re Leah Hayes

T. Y. J., Appellant

v.
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 261ST DISTR ICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. D

- 1

- FM

- 16

- 005029 THE HO NORABLE ORLINDA NARA NJO, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R T O S H O W C A U S E

PER CURIAM

This is a contempt proceeding ancillary to the appeal of T. Y. J. The subject of
this proceeding is court reporter Leah Hayes , who has failed to comply with thi s Court’s order to
file the reporter’s record.

On June 5, 2018 , we ordered Hayes to file the record by June 15, 2018, and
cautioned her that failure to file the record by that date could require her to show cause why she
should not be held in contempt of court.

Therefore, it is hereby ordered that Leah Hayes shall appear in person before this

Court on Tuesday , July 3, 20 1 8 , at 1:30 p.m. , in the Third Court of Appeals courtroom, located
on the first floor of the Price Daniel, Sr. Building, 209 West 14th Street, in Austin, TravisCounty, Texas, to show cause why she should not be held in contempt and have sanctions

imposed for her failure to obey our June 5, 2018 order. This order to show cause will be

withdrawn and Hayes will be relieved of her obligati on to appear before this Court as ordered
above if the Clerk of the Court receives the complete reporter’s record on or before 10:00 a.m.
on Monday, July 2, 2018.

It is ordered on June 19, 2018.

Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Bourland
#### W. L. McKNIGHT, d/b/a Webster Outdoor Advertising Co. (not inc.), Appellant, v. HIALEAH RACE COURSE, INC., Gulfstream Park Racing Association, Inc., Tropical Park, Inc., Florida Thoroughbred Council, Florida Thoroughbred Breeders’ Association and Florida State Racing Commission, Appellees.

No. 69-535.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Aug. 21, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Mrs. Dorothy DORSEY v. The BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the JACKSON MUNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF JACKSON, Mississippi.

No. 50385.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

June 7, 1978.

Cupit & Maxey, John L. Maxey, II, Jackson, for appellant.

Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, Richard W. Dortch, W. David Watkins, Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Hinds County; J. C. Stennett, Chancellor.

Before SMITH, P. J., and WALKER and COFER, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the balance
sheet of CNL Income Fund XVIII, Ltd. at December 31, 1997, and its statement of
income for the year then ended and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
the Form 10K of CNL Income Fund XVIII, Ltd. for the year ended December 31,
1997.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       4,143,327
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   68,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                      21,451,442
<DEPRECIATION>                                 140,380
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              31,823,613
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  29,846,580
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                31,823,613
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,453,242
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  298,482
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,154,760
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,154,760
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,154,760
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Due to the nature of its industry, CNL Income Fund XVIII, Ltd. has an
unclassified balance sheet; therefore, no values are shown above for current
assets and current liabilities.
</FN>
        




</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Med-Design Corporation

Ventura, California

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Forms S-3 (Registration Nos. 333-05927, 333-22201, 333-31858,
333-65472, 333-86432, 333-99161, 333-108759 and 333-115511) and S-8
(Registration Nos. 333-75957, 333-90933, 333-49194 and 333-99163) of The
Med-Design Corporation of our report dated April 27, 2005 on the effectiveness
of the Med-Design Corporation's internal control over financial reporting,
included in its 2004 Annual Report on Form 10-K/A.


/s/ BDO Seidman, LLP

Los Angeles, California

May 2, 2005


                                       18
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, April 17, 2018. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, April 17, 2018 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A18D0378. ADRIAN BURDETTE v. CHANDLER TELECOM, LLC et al. .
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: SUCV2018000074
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72 -70

38 40 42 44



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲

▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 05/29 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 29 May 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.77 N 77.11 WMeters AGL
1 This Court suspended activity in this appeal in accordance with the automatic stay. S ee 11

U.S.C.A. § 362 (West Supp. 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 8. We reinstate the appeal for purposes

of dismissal. The bankruptcy trustee is the representative of the estate, with exclusive standing to

assert a claim. 11 U.S.C.A. § 323(a) (West Supp. 2004); C arter v. Carter

, 21 S.W.3d 441, 443 (Tex.

App.—San Antonio 2000, no pet.). When an action is already pending, a trustee may (1) assume

prosecution of the action; (2) consent to the debtor’s continued pro secution of the action for the

trustee’s benefit, or (3) decline to prosecute the action if it appears to be fruitless. I d .; Fed. R. Bankr.

6009. Here the trustee appears to have assumed prosecution of the action and settled it. 

### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-02-00509-CV

The Heep Homestead and Hatsy Heep Shaffer, Appellants

v.

Jennifer L. Brannon, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 126TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. GN103418, HONORABLE SUZANNE COVINGTON, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

The Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of David E. Shaffer and Harriet “Hatsy” Heep

Shaffer 1 has notified the court that the Estate and appellee Jennifer L. Brannon have settled the cause2

and the parties move to dismiss the appeal. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. S ee Tex.

R. App. P. 42.1.

W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Kidd and B. A. Smith

Dismissed

Filed: August 12, 2004
#### RICHARD NASRALLAH HOMES, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Carl G. RASSLER and Amarilys G. Rassler, his wife, Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

No. 77-1038.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 24, 1978.

Paul T. Marks, Tampa, for appellant/cross-appellee.

Carl G. Rassler, pro se, for appel-lees/cross-appellants.

BOARDMAN, Chief Judge.

By this appeal we review the amended final judgment rendered pursuant to a jury verdict in a suit brought by appellant/cross-appellee/plaintiff, Richard Nasrallah Homes, Inc., against appellees/cross-appel-lants/defendants, Carl G. and Amarilys G. Rassler, to foreclose a mechanic’s lien.

After a review of the evidence in its entirety, consideration of the briefs, and after hearing oral arguments, we hold that there was sufficient, competent evidence to support the jury verdicts. We cannot, however, sustain the award of the trial court of prejudgment interest in the sum of $531.36 to appellant. *See, e. g., Newcombe v. South Florida Business Negotiators, Inc.,*340 So.2d 1192 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). We, therefore, direct the trial court to delete that item from the amended final judgment. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED as modified with directions.

OTT and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 99.7

March 4, 2013

Agrium Inc.

13131 Lake Fraser Drive S.E.

Calgary, AB T2J 7E8

Ladies and Gentlemen:



|Re: | Annual Report on Form 40-F
|--- | --------------------------

Reference is
made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F (the Annual Report) filed by Agrium Inc. (the Corporation) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

I, Erika D. Stoner, P. Eng., a qualified person, am responsible for preparing or supervising the preparation of certain sections of the technical report entitled National Instrument 43-101 Technical
Report on Vanscoy Potash Operations dated February 15, 2012 and having an effective date of December 31, 2011 (the Technical Report).

I hereby consent to the inclusion in the Annual Report of references to and information derived from the Technical Report and to the use of my name therein. I also consent to the incorporation by
reference of such information in Registration Statements Nos. 333-11254, 333-114276, 333-132207, 333-143334, 333-149666, 333-161620 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-180315 on Form F-10 of the Corporation.

Yours truly,



|                        
|------------------------
|/S/ Erika D. Stoner     
|Erika D. Stoner, P. Eng.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2071 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2071

      To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to clarify 
     congressional intent regarding the counting of residents in a 
            nonhospital setting under the medicare program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 18, 2005

Ms. Snowe (for herself, Mr. Bingaman, Ms. Collins, Mr. Dorgan, and Mr. 
 Rockefeller) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to clarify 
     congressional intent regarding the counting of residents in a 
            nonhospital setting under the medicare program.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Community and Rural Medical 
Residency Preservation Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF CONGRESSIONAL INTENT REGARDING THE COUNTING OF 
              RESIDENTS IN A NONHOSPITAL SETTING.

    (a) D-GME.--Section 1886(h)(4)(E) (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(h)(4)(E)) is 
amended by adding at the end the following new sentences: ``For 
purposes of the preceding sentence, the term `all, or substantially 
all, of the costs for the training program' means the stipends and 
benefits provided to the resident and other amounts, if any, as 
determined by the hospital and the entity operating the nonhospital 
setting. The hospital is not required to pay the entity any amounts 
other than those determined by the hospital and the entity in order for 
the hospital to be considered to have incurred all, or substantially 
all, of the costs for the training program in that setting.''.
    (b) IME.--Section 1886(d)(5)(B)(iv) (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(5)(B)(iv)) 
is amended by adding at the end the following new sentences: ``For 
purposes of the preceding sentence, the term `all, or substantially 
all, of the costs for the training program' means the stipends and 
benefits provided to the resident and other amounts, if any, as 
determined by the hospital and the entity operating the nonhospital 
setting. The hospital is not required to pay the entity any amounts 
other than those determined by the hospital and the entity in order for 
the hospital to be considered to have incurred all, or substantially 
all, of the costs for the training program in that setting.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take 
effect on January 1, 2005.
                                 <all>
```
#### GEMAIRE DISTRIBUTORS, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellant, v. WESTLAND-EDEN, INC., a Florida Corporation, and Flagship First National Bank of Miami Beach, Appellees.

No. 77-1338.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 6, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 16, 1978.

Taylor, Brion, Buker & Greene and Ar-naldo Velez, Miami, for appellant.

Therrel, Baisden, Stanton, Stillman, Brown & Wood and Allen R. Roman, Miami Beach, for appellees.

Before PEARSON and NATHAN, JJ., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See *Schleifer v. All-Shores Const. & Supply Co., Inc.,*260 So.2d 270 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972).
#### Albert RUSHING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-1452.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 1, 1978.

*502Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, Bar-tow, and Wayne Chalu, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Richard G. Pippinger, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

OTT, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of possessing a controlled substance with intent to deliver and delivery of a controlled substance. He was adjudicated guilty of these charges and sentenced to fifteen years on each count to be served concurrently.

In this appeal appellant argues that one of his two sentences must be set aside because both crimes occurred during a single episode in which appellant delivered heroin to an undercover agent, citing *Williams v. State,*349 So.2d 800 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). We agree. When a defendant is convicted of two crimes in a single transaction, and each of the crimes is a facet of the same transaction, a sentence should be imposed for only the highest crime charged. *Orange v. State,*334 So.2d 277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). This rationale was applied by this court in *Williams v. State, supra.*

In the instant case both of the crimes for which appellant was convicted are second degree felonies punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment not exceeding fifteen years. Sections 893.-13(1)(a)1 and 775.082(3)(c), Florida Statutes (1975). It follows that either crime can be considered the “highest crime charged” for sentencing purposes under *Orange*v. *State, supra.*This being the case, the judgment of conviction for possessing a controlled substance with intent to deliver is affirmed, but the.sentence for that crime is hereby set aside.

The judgment of conviction for delivering a controlled substance is also affirmed, but this case is remanded for resen-tencing of appellant. The present sentence does not specifically set forth the period of credit time to be allowed as required by Section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes (1975); *Brooks*v. *State,*349 So.2d 794 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). Moreover, the phrase “at hard labor” in the sentence is improper. *Brooks v. State, supra.*The appellant does not have to be present at resentencing.

Remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and DANAHY, J., concur.