alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7556

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARTIN LOCKLEAR, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CR-95-16, CA-98-344-5-BR) Submitted: April 20, 1999 Decided: May 3, 1999 Before HAMILTON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Martin Locklear, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Skiver, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on September 29, 1998, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on September 30, 1998. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Martin Locklear seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Locklear , Nos. CR-95- 16; CA-98-344-5-BR (E.D.N.C. Sept. 30, 1998). * We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
State Allocation

Alabama $356,382,822.00 

Alaska $43,189,176.00 

Arizona $226,731,767.00 

Arkansas $216,225,138.00 

California $1,218,261,277.00 

Colorado $265,396,436.00 

Connecticut $202,744,874.00 

Delaware $90,583,517.00 

District of Columbia $0.00 

Florida $1,416,425,123.00 

Georgia $861,827,586.00 

Hawaii $46,191,175.00 

Idaho $107,940,808.00 

Illinois $742,179,391.00 

Indiana $432,551,280.00 

Iowa $221,737,821.00 

Kansas $167,352,563.00 

Kentucky $324,203,207.00 

Louisiana $315,493,318.00 

Maine $119,223,764.00 

Maryland $528,963,161.00 

Massachusetts $385,056,772.00 

Michigan $644,291,475.00 

Minnesota $376,932,399.00 

Mississippi $268,046,958.00 

Missouri $450,143,657.00 

Montana $86,377,829.00 

Nebraska $111,189,720.00 

Nevada $150,738,524.00 

New Hampshire $112,208,773.00 

New Jersey $578,121,375.00 

New Mexico $126,089,079.00 

New York $774,248,894.00 

North Carolina $705,384,207.00 

North Dakota $53,174,975.00 

Ohio $843,726,939.00 

Oklahoma $238,432,979.00 

Oregon $248,351,580.00 

Pennsylvania $983,008,128.00 

Rhode Island $58,146,731.00 

South Carolina $435,125,080.00 

South Dakota $65,246,504.00 
Tennessee $438,055,590.00 

Texas $1,386,117,819.00 

Utah $186,820,600.00 

Vermont $58,788,245.00 

Virginia $633,753,549.00 

Washington $442,823,871.00 

West Virginia $162,490,814.00 

Wisconsin $411,577,691.00 

Wyoming $47,790,929.00 

American Samoa $5,071,819.00 

Guam $17,599,913.00 

Northern Mariana Islands $5,447,789.00 

Puerto Rico $124,849,699.00 

Virgin Islands $11,164,890.00 

TOTAL $19,530,000,000.00
**Exhibit31.1**

**CertificationPursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

I, Robert D.Hansen, certify that: 

     1. Ihave reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Electromed, Inc.;

     2. Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

     3. Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in the this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operation, and cash flows of the registrant asof, and for, the periods presented in this report;

     4. Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15(d)-15(e)) and internal control over financialreporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for theregistrant and have: 

     a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

     b)Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and 

     c)Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

     5. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s Board ofDirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

     a)All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize, andreport financial information; and 

     b)Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting. 

 

----
#### Johnell LOCKETT, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida, Respondent.

No. 72-445.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 14, 1973.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Robert T. Adams, Jr., Ft. Lauderdale, for petitioner.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Nelson E. Bailey, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner’s original direct appeal from a judgment and sentence imposed upon conviction of first degree murder was frustrated by an untimely filed notice of appeal by court appointed counsel.

We grant petitioner a belated review of the judgment and sentence equivalent to a direct appeal by means of this habeas corpus proceeding. Henninger v. State, 230 So.2d 149 (Fla.1970).

We have heard and considered oral argument of counsel for the respective parties, examined the briefs and record, and conclude that petitioner has failed to demonstrate reversible error. Accordingly, the judgment and sentence is affirmed and habeas corpus denied.

Habeas corpus denied.

WALDEN, CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Pamela Forbes Lieberman, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of TruServ Corporation;

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 quarterly
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
TruServ as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. TruServ's other certifying officer 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 TruServ and we 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
            TruServ, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
            us by others within those entities, particularly during the period
            in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

            b. evaluated the effectiveness of TruServ's disclosure controls and
            procedures and presented in this report our conclusions 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 quarterly report any change in the registrant's
            internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
            registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth
            fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
            affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
            registrant's internal control over financial reporting;

5. TruServ's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation, to TruServ's auditors and the audit committee of TruServ's
board of directors:

            a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
            design or operation of internal controls which are reasonably likely
            to adversely affect TruServ'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 TruServ's internal
            control over financial reporting.

TRUSERV CORPORATION

Date: May 13, 2004

By /s/ PAMELA FORBES LIEBERMAN
------------------------------
Pamela Forbes Lieberman
President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32

March 14,
2014
Via EDGAR
Securities and Exchange Commission
100 F Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Re:
Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Ladies
and Gentlemen:

In
connection with the Annual Report of ECA Marcellus Trust I (the "Trust") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the Trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:



The
above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as
a separate disclosure document.

The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company,
N.A., Trustee for ECA Marcellus Trust IBy:

/s/ MIKE ULRICH Mike Ulrich Vice President and Trust Officer


---



QuickLinks
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-10299

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

PAUL LOVELL WEBB, also known as “P”, also known as “Pete”,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:95-CR-359-1

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Paul Lovell Webb, federal prisoner # 27797-077, appeals the district 

court’s denial of his motion for disposition pursuant to the Interstate 

Agreement on Detainers Act (IADA). Webb filed the motion, invoking the 

IADA as well as the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, in an attempt to 

obtain disposition of charges that he violated the terms of his supervised 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 15, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-10299 Document: 00514601876 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/15/2018
No. 18-10299

2

release. A detainer has been lodged against Webb based on an arrest warrant 

related to the petition to revoke his supervised release.

In his pro se appellate brief, Webb argues that he has a Sixth 

Amendment right to a speedy trial and that the district court ignored this right 

in denying his motion for disposition. His brief contains no authority 

supporting the existence of a constitutional speedy trial right with regard to 

revocation proceedings, but he contends that the electronic legal research 

service available to him in his detention facility is monitored to prevent him 

from finding caselaw that supports his claims. We have held, however, that 

“[s]upervised release revocation hearings are not criminal proceedings” and, 

thus, the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial is not applicable. United 

States v. Tippens, 39 F.3d 88, 89-90 (5th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks 

and citations omitted). Webb’s claim therefore fails to the extent it is based on 

the constitutional right to a speedy trial. See id. 

Webb has abandoned the claim that he is entitled to speedy disposition 

pursuant to the IADA because he has not briefed the issue. Although pro se 

briefs are afforded liberal construction, even pro se litigants must brief 

arguments in order to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 

(5th Cir. 1993). In any event, the district court did not err in determining that 

the IADA does not apply to retainers for supervised release violations. See 

Carchman v. Nash, 473 U.S. 716, 725, 728 (1985).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Webb’s request for the 

appointment of counsel for the purpose of oral argument, which is incorporated 

in his appellate brief, is DENIED.

 Case: 18-10299 Document: 00514601876 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/15/2018
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 248 

To amend title 23, United States Code, to expand eligibility for the surface 

transportation block grant program, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 11, 2021 

Mr. HASTINGS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend title 23, United States Code, to expand eligibility 

for the surface transportation block grant program, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Farm-to-Market Road 

5 Repair Act of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BLOCK GRANT PRO7 GRAM. 

8 Section 133 of title 23, United States Code, is 

9 amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 248 IH

1 (1) in subsection (b) by adding at the end the 

2 following: 

3 ‘‘(16) Roads in rural areas that primarily serve 

4 to transport agricultural products from a farm or 

5 ranch to a marketplace.’’; and 

6 (2) in subsection (g)— 

7 (A) in the heading by striking ‘‘5,000’’ and 

8 inserting ‘‘50,000’’; and 

9 (B) in paragraph (1) by striking ‘‘sub10 section (d)(1)(A)(ii)’’ and all that follows 

11 through the period at the end and inserting 

12 ‘‘clauses (iii) and (iv) of subsection (d)(1)(A) 

13 for each fiscal year may be obligated on roads 

14 functionally classified as rural minor collectors 

15 or local roads or on critical rural freight cor16 ridors designated under section 167(e).’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 24, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-40779 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus DAVID ESPINOSA-VALLES, also known as David Espinoza, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-02-CR-87-1

-------------------- Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * David Espinosa-Valles appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for being found in the United States afterdeportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. EspinosaValles argues that the sentencing provisions in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional on their face and as applied in his case. He contends that the unconstitutional portions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 should be severed from the statute. He asks usNo. 02-40779 -2- to vacate his conviction and sentence, reform the judgment to reflect a conviction only under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), and remand his case for resentencing under that provision.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Espinosa-Valles acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been called into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 489-90 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. The Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 17 CFR SECTION 240.13a-14

|
|



I, Firouzeh Sarhangi, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Corning Natural Gas Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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)) and internal control 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, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 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 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 registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer'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 the 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: August 14, 2008


/s/ Firouzeh Sarhangi           
|--------------------------------------------------------
|Firouzeh Sarhangi, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer