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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6955

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

YAYAH TALIB,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big 

Stone Gap. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (2:07-cr-00003-JPJ-1)

Submitted: January 17, 2023 Decided: January 20, 2023

Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Yayah Talib, Appellant Pro Se. Whitney Demain Pierce, OFFICE OF THE UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6955 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/20/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Yayah Talib appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate 

release, brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act 

of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. After reviewing the 

record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Talib’s 

motion. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.) (per curiam) (stating 

standard of review), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). Accordingly, we affirm the district 

court’s order. United States v. Talib, No. 2:07-cr-00003-JPJ-1 (W.D. Va. Aug. 9, 2022). 

We deny Talib’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6955 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/20/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000861291
<NAME> SYLVAN INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-04-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-02-2000
<CASH>                                           7,601
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,173
<ALLOWANCES>                                       826
<INVENTORY>                                     10,110
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,216
<PP&E>                                          86,640
<DEPRECIATION>                                  32,391
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 109,495
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,435
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             7
<OTHER-SE>                                      47,217
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   109,495
<SALES>                                         89,611
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                89,611
<CGS>                                           52,492
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   79,055
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     1
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,231
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,324
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,131
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,128
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.00


</TABLE>
#### Chester JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-1113.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 22, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### R. Albert ANDERSON, Appellant, v. JOHN R. PERKINS REALTY, INC., and Harold Fred Berger Real Estate, Inc., Appellees.

No. 73-522.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 30, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Theundersigned officer of Courier Corporation (the “Company”) hereby certifiesthat the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,2007 to which this certification is attached (the “Report”), as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.
| *August 8, 2007* |   | By:                       | * * | *s/Peter M. Folger* | * * |   |
|------------------|--------|---------------------------|----------|---------------------|----------|--------|
| Date             |   | Peter M. Folger           |     |                |
|             |   | Senior Vice President and |     |                |
|             |   | Chief Financial Officer   |     |                |

 

This certification shall not be deemed “filed” for any purpose, nor shallit be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing, under theSecurities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

----
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### June 13, 2011 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT
IN RE: CLAUDINE RENE FULLER, Debtor.

_________________________ CLAUDINE RENE FULLER, Appellant, No. 10-3268 (BAP No. 10-051-KS) (BAP)

v. TRACY L. ROBINSON, Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, ANDERSON , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this court has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the resolution of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2- Proceeding pro se , appellant Claudine Rene Fuller appeals the dismissal of the appeal she filed with the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Tenth Circuit (BAP). Fuller’s BAP appeal involved a challenge to the bankruptcy court’s approval of the payment of fees to the attorney who filed her Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. Fuller believes her attorney was not responsible for staying the foreclosure sale of her home scheduled for December 15, 2009, when he filed her Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition on December 14, 2009. The BAP dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. See Deyhimy v. Rupp ( In re Herwit), 970 F.2d 709, 710 (10th Cir. 1992). Having reviewed the record, including the appendix submitted by Appellee, we conclude the BAP’s jurisdictional ruling is correct. Emann v. Latture ( In re Latture ), 605 F.3d 830, 832 (10th Cir. 2010) (“[T]he failure to file a timely notice of appeal from a bankruptcy court’s order constitutes a jurisdictional defect.”). Accordingly, the dismissal of Fuller’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction is affirmed
. ENTERED FOR THE COURT Michael R. Murphy Circuit Judge
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 6270]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3273]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES

Meeting of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Rules of 
Criminal Procedure

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the United States, Advisory Committee on 
Rules of Criminal Procedure.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure will 
hold a two-day meeting. The meeting will be open to public observation 
but not participation and will be held each day from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 
p.m.

DATES: April 7-8, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, Judicial 
Conference Center, One Columbus Circle, N.E., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John K. Rabiej, Chief, Rules Committee 
Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, 
Washington, D.C. 20544, telephone (202) 273-1820.

    Dated: February 4, 1997.
John K. Rabiej,
Chief, Rules Committee Support Office.
[FR Doc. 97-3273 Filed 2-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 2210-01-M
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of JAGO CHINA HOLDING LIMITED (the “Company”) for the year ended February 28, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Yinyin Shao, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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: May 31, 2011
By:
/s/ Yinyin ShaoYinyin ShaoPresident, Treasurer and Secretary

(principal executive officer and principal financial

officer)





This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
Docket No. 61313 

In his motion filed on June 4, 2012, appellant sought 

presentence credit in case C254735. Appellant's claim for presentence 

credit is a challenge to the validity of the judgment of conviction and 

sentence and such a claim must be raised in a post-conviction petition for 

a writ of habeas corpus and is subject to the procedural time bar set forth 

in NRS 34.726(1). Griffin v. State,122 Nev. 737, 744, 137 P.3d 1165, 

1169-70 (2006). Appellant's motion was untimely as it was filed more 

than two years after entry of the judgment of conviction on January 14, 

2010. Appellant did not attempt to demonstrate cause for the delay. 

Therefore, we affirm the order of the district court denying the motion in 

this case. 

Docket No. 61314 

In his motion filed on June 4, 2012, appellant sought 405 days 

of presentence credit in case C261607. Appellant's claim for presentence 

credit should have been filed in a post-conviction petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus. Id. However, the motion was timely as it was filed within 

one-year from entry of the judgment of conviction on July 21, 2011, in 

C261607. NRS 34.726(1). The motion, nevertheless, lacked merit as 

appellant sought credit for time served in other cases. 2See NRS 

2Appellant's reliance upon Johnson v. State, 120 Nev. 296, 89 P.3d 

669 (2004) is misplaced as Johnsonrelates to concurrent sentences within 

a single judgment of conviction and not concurrent sentences between 

separate judgments of conviction. Id. at 298, 89 P.3d at 670. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2 
Hardesty 

pc, 

Parraguirre 

176.055(1). Therefore, we affirm the order of the district court denying the 

motion in this case. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgments of the district court AFFIRMED. 

cc: Hon. Doug Smith, District Judge 

Ronald Eugene Midby 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

3
- MYP Matrix_Amendment 1
- MYP Narrative_Amendment 1
- FMM Restore Project Map
Exhibit 31.1
I, Roger W. Sherman, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of Preferred Financial Resources,
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, the 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 the report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in the report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of Preferred
Financial Resources, Inc. as of, and for, the periods presented in the report;

4. The other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as such term is defined in
Regulation 13a-14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) for Preferred
Financial Resources, Inc and have:

i. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to Preferred Financial Resources, Inc., including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which the periodic reports are being
prepared;

ii. Evaluated the effectiveness of Preferred Financial Resources, Inc.'s
disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the
filing date of the report ("Evaluation Date"); and

iii. Presented in the report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation
Date;

5. The other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation, to the Preferred Financial Resources, Inc. auditors and the audit
committee of the board of directors (or persons fulfilling the equivalent
function):

i. All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect Preferred Financial Resources, Inc.'s ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for
Preferred Financial Resources, Inc.'s auditors any material weaknesses in
internal controls; and

ii. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the issuer's internal controls; and

6. I and the other certifying officer have indicated in the report whether or
not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors
that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our
most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: March 18, 2004

By: Roger Sherman
---------------------------
Roger W. Sherman, President
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 237 (Wednesday, December 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 65075]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32238]



[[Page 65075]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-79-000]


Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company; Notice of Tariff Filling

December 4, 1997.
    Take notice that on December 1, 1997, Tennessee Gas Pipeline 
Company (Tennessee) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
the following revised sheets, with an effective date of January 1, 
1998:

Fifth Revised Sheet No. 38
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 39
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 40
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 41
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 42
First Revised Sheet No. 43
First Revised Sheet No. 44
First Revised Sheet No. 45

    Tennessee states that these tariff sheets set forth revisions to 
Tennessee's tariff provisions concerning collection of Tennessee's 
take-or-pay transition costs through fixed charges. Tennessee states 
that the amount filed to be collected under the foregoing tariff sheet 
is $2,530,367, which includes $439,462 of market area volumetric costs 
proposed to be collected through fixed charges.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 24026, 
in accordance with 18 CFR sections 385.211 and 385.214 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must 
be filed as provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's 
Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in 
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to 
make protestants parties to this proceeding. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and available for public inspection in 
the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-32238 Filed 12-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXHIBIT 11.2

<TABLE>
CPI CORP. COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE - BASIC
(in thousands of dollars and shares except per share amounts)
Twelve Weeks Ended May 1, 1999 and May 2, 1998
<CAPTION>
                                          Twelve Weeks Ended
                                         ----------------------
                                           May 1,      May 2,
                                            1999        1998
                                         ---------    ---------
<S>                                      <C>          <C>
Basic:

  Net earnings (loss) applicable to
    common shares                        $     74     $   (506)
                                         =========    =========
Shares:
  Weighted average number of
    common shares outstanding              17,763       17,536
  Less:  Treasury stock - weighted
    average                                (7,864)      (7,622)
                                         ---------    ---------
  Weighted average number of common
    and common equivalent shares
    outstanding                             9,899        9,914
                                         =========    =========
Net earnings (loss) per common and
    common equivalent shares             $   0.01     $  (0.05)
                                         =========    =========

</TABLE>













                              22
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Sara Lee Corporation (the Company) for the fiscal quarter ended December 29, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Brenda C. Barnes, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 result of operations of the Company.

Dated: February 6, 2008



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/s/ Brenda C. Barnes,               
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
#### John E. SOCASH et al., Appellants, v. VOLUSIA COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, et al., Appellees.

No. 42633.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 7, 1972.

Robert R. Foster, Gainesville, for appellants.

Warren O. Tiller, County Atty., for ap-pellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CARLTON, ADKINS, and BOYD, JJ., and DREW, J. (Retired), concur.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., dissents with opinion.

ERVIN, Acting Chief Justice

(dissenting) :

Time does not permit elaboration of a dissenting opinion in this election case argued today. I will confine my views to one specific point as hereinafter outlined. Section 1(e), Article VIII, 1968 Florida Constitution, F.S.A., provides:

> “(e) Commissioners. Except when otherwise provided by county charter, the governing body of each county shall be a board of county commissioners composed of five members serving staggered terms of four years. After each decennial census the board of county commissioners shall divide the county into districts of contiguous territory as nearly equal in population as practicable. One commissioner residing in each district shall be elected by the electors of the county.”

Properly construed, the first language in this section, reading, “except when otherwise provided by county charter,” does not give the framers of county charters a completely free hand to provide any kind of local governing body, at least to the extent of ignoring the specific requirements of the last two sentences of the section relating to the composition, residence and election of such governing body. It is implicit throughout the section that there can be no unrestrained “free-wheeling” in creating the county governing body, but that there must be districts “of contiguous territory as nearly equal in population as practicable” in the county, with a member of the governing body residing in each district *who is elected hy all the electors of the • county.*The constitutional provision does not allow a county charter to create a “ward system” or permit the Governor to appoint the governing body. Instead, a governing body of elected officials very similar in nature to a board of county commissioners is mandated. The exception language in the first sentence only modifies that sentence. It should not be read to contradict or modify the two remaining essential sentences of the section, otherwise there would have been no reason for their inclusion. The county charter under the exception can vary the normal standard therein of a “board of county commissioners composed of five members serving staggered terms of four years” only to the extent such variation does not conflict with the limitations of the last two sentences of the section.
FOR RELEASE AT 3:00 p.m. 

OCTOBER 28, 1991 

CONTACT: Cheryl Crispen 

(202) 566-2041 

TREASURY ANNOUNCES MARKET BORROWING NEEDS 

The Treasury Department today announced that its estimated 

net market borrowing needs for the October-December 1991 quarter 

are expected to be $75.8 billion, with a $30 billion cash balance 

on December 31. The Treasury also announced that its estimated 

net market borrowing needs for the January-March 1992 quarter are 

expected to be in a range of $95 to $100 billion, with a $20 

billion cash balance at the end of March 1992. The borrowing 

estimates include allowances for Resolution Trust Corporation 

activities. 

In the quarterly refunding announcement on July 31, 1991, 

Treasury estimated net market borrowing during the OctoberDecember quarter to be in a range of $85 to $90 billion, with a 

$30 billion end-of-quarter balance. The reduction in market 

borrowing reflects the larger-than-anticipated cash balance at 

the end of September. 

Actual market borrowing in the quarter ending September 30, 

1991 was $103.5 billion, while the end-of-quarter cash balance 

was $41.5 billion. On July 31, Treasury had estimated market 

borrowing for the July-September quarter to be $107.5 billion, 

with a $30 billion cash balance on September 30. Larger receipts 

and reduced spending for financial institution resolution and for 

Agriculture and Health and Human Services programs, compared with 

the July 31 estimates, account for most of the improvement in the 

Treasury cash position during this period.