alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Carl Stanley ATKINSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David McKUNE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 02-3134.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Sept. 3, 2002.

Carl Stanley Atkinson, Lansing Correctional Facility, Lansing, KS, for Petitioner-Appellant.

*460Jared S. Maag, Office of the Attorney General State of Kansas, Topeka, KS, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before KELLY, McKAY, and MURPBY, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

McKAY, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination 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.

This is a pro se § 2254 prisoner appeal. Mr. Atkinson was convicted of aggravated burglary, theft, kidnaping, obstruction of legal process, and aggravated battery against a law enforcement officer. He was sentenced to 130 months’ imprisonment. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal, and the state supreme court denied further review. In his federal habeas petition, Mr. Atkinson claimed due process violation, failure to give jury instruction on the reliability of eyewitness testimony, and failure to give lesser included offense instruction of criminal restraint on the kidnapping charge. The district court denied the petition on the merits and declined to grant him a certificate of ap-pealability. Petitioner then applied to this court for a certificate of appealability.

In order for this court to grant a certificate of appealability, Petitioner must make *“a*substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To do so, Petitioner must demonstrate that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000) (quotations omitted).

We have carefully reviewed Mr. Atkinson’s brief, the district court’s disposition, and the record on appeal. Nothing in the facts, the record on appeal, or Petitioner’s brief raises an issue which meets our standards for the grant of a certificate of ap-pealability. For substantially the same reasons as set forth by the district court in its Order of April 4, 2002, we cannot say that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner.” *Id.*We DENY Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appeala-bility and DISMISS the appeal.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
BLACK, Circuit Judge, specially concurring:

I concur in the conclusion, stated in section IV.A of the

majority opinion, that there was no valid consent decree upon which

the district court could have entered its judgment. I therefore

concur in the result as well. Since the district court's judgment

must be vacated because it was premised on an invalid consent

decree, our analysis should end at this point.

The three-judge court granted Bradford and Montiel's motions

to intervene in this suit as party plaintiffs, and the parties have

not appealed these rulings. Once a party intervenes, he becomes a

full participant and is entitled to have his claims litigated.

Alvarado v. J.C. Penney Co., 997 F.2d 803, 805 (10th Cir. 1993); 7C

Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary K. Kane, Federal

Practice and Procedure § 1920 (1986). The original parties to a

suit may not, through a purported consent decree settling the

claims between them, stipulate away the rights of an intervening

party without his approval. Local Number 93, Int'l Ass'n of

Firefighters v. City of Cleveland , 478 U.S. 501, 529, 106 S. Ct.

3063, 3079 (1986) (citing Wheeler v. American Home Products Corp.,

563 F.2d 1233, 1237-38 (5th Cir. 1977)); 3B James W. Moore, Moore's

Federal Practice ¶ 24.16[6] (2d ed. 1995). It follows that a

consent decree that compromises a non-consenting party's claims is

invalid to the extent that it does so. See Local Number 93, 478

U.S. at 529, 106 S. Ct. at 3079; United States v. City of Miami,

Fla., 664 F.2d 435, 442 (5th Cir. 1981) (en banc) (Rubin, J.);

League of United Latin American Citizens v. Clements, 999 F.2d 831,

846 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.
 1

 The decree would also be invalid if, as maintained by the

appellants, the state's attorney general did not have authority to

negotiate the decree and bind the Alabama legislature, governor and

populace to a plan that would alter state constitutional and

statutory provisions.

2

Ct. 878 (1994). 

In the case before us, the settlement reached by the White

class and the State of Alabama resolved the claims of Bradford and

Montiel contrary to their interests and without their consent.

Bradford and Montiel, however, were entitled as party plaintiffs to

fully litigate their claims. They did not receive this

opportunity. The district court believed, erroneously, it had

before it a valid consent decree; and the court entered its final

judgment based on the purported consent decree. Since the consent

decree was invalid1

, the court could not enter a final consent

judgment and we need not consider the substance of the invalid

judgment.
Exhibit 99.2

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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Del Global Technologies Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended May 3, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas
V. Gilboy, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 that to my knowledge:

   (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.



                                           /s/ Thomas V Gilboy
                                          -------------------------
                                          Name: Thomas V. Gilboy
                                          Chief Financial Officer
                                          Date: June 23, 2003





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Del Global Technologies Corp and will be retained by Del Global
Technologies Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Gregg L. Engles, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Dean Holding Company; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement 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 respectto the period covered by this quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cashflows of Dean Holding Company as of, and for, the periodspresented in this quarterly report; 4. Dean Holding Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for DeanHolding Company and have:
 a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to DeanHolding Company and its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this quarterly report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of Dean Holding Company’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this quarterly report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures as of the period covered by this quarterly report, based onsuch evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this quarterly report any change in Dean HoldingCompany’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring Dean Holding Company’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,Dean Holding Company’s internal control over financial reporting.
5. Dean Holding Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to Dean Holding Company’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
 a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect Dean Holding Company’s abilityto record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in Dean Holding Company’sinternal control over financial reporting.
 /s/ GREGG L. ENGLES      Gregg L. Engles *Chief Executive Officer*
August 16, 2004
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 31 (Friday, February 14, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6929-6930]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3727]


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


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 97-54, RM-8989]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Poplar Bluff, MO

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition filed by The 
Word of Victory Outreach Center, Inc., proposing the allotment of 
Channel 223A to Poplar Bluff, Missouri, as that community's fifth FM 
broadcast service. The coordinates for Channel 223A are 36-45-30 and 
90-23-54.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before March 31, 1997, and reply 
comments on or before April 15, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC. 20554. In 
addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should 
serve the petitioner's counsel, as follows: Eugene T. Smith, 715 G 
Street, SE., Washington, DC. 20003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 97-54, adopted January 31, 1997, 
and released February 7, 1997. The full text of this Commission 
decision is available

[[Page 6930]]

for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the 
Commission's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW., 
Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be 
purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International 
Transcription Services, Inc., 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140, 
Washington, DC. 20037, (202) 857-3800.
    Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply 
to this proceeding.
    Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to 
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are 
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve 
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing 
permissible ex parte contact.
    For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, 
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 97-3727 Filed 2-13-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 5 (Wednesday, January 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 1100]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-350]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP97-212-000]


CNG Transmission Corporation; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

January 2, 1997.
    Take notice that on December 30, 1996, CNG Transmission Corporation 
(CNG), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets:

Title Page

Third Revised Sheet No. 1
First Revised Sheet No. 21
Second Revised Sheet No. 251
First Revised Sheet No. 253
First Revised Sheet No. 266
First Revised Sheet No. 336
Second Revised Sheet No. 348
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 349
Third Revised Sheet No. 354
Second Revised Sheet No. 358A
First Revised Sheet No. 387
Original Sheet No. 388
Original Sheet No. 389

    CNG requests a waiver of the 30-day notice requirement so that 
these substitute tariff sheets may become effective on December 31, 
1996.
    CNG states that the revised tariff sheets are submitted to comply 
with the regulations promulgated under Order Nos. 582 and 582-A.
    CNG states that copies of this letter of transmittal and enclosures 
are being mailed to CNG's customers and interested state commissions.
    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, DC, 20426, in 
accordance with sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with 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 the 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 are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-350 Filed 1-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### In the Matter of Wilfredo Otero, Petitioner, v New York City Department of Corrections et al., Respondents.

[735 NYS2d 768]

Determination of respondent Commissioner, dated September 8, 2000, which, after a prison disciplinary hearing, found petitioner guilty of possession of narcotics and imposed a penalty of 3,600 days in punitive segregation, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to reduce the penalty to 90 days, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.], entered April 27, 2001) otherwise disposed of by confirming the remainder of the determination, without costs.

Upon review of the record, we find substantial evidence *(see, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176, 180) to support the determination finding petitioner guilty of narcotics possession based on the drug test NIK report and the apprehending officers’ written report *(see, Matter of Archie v Great Meadow Correctional Facility,*243 AD2d 808). We also find that the hearing officer’s determination at the inmate disciplinary hearing not to permit petitioner to call or *273confront witnesses did not, under the circumstances obtaining, constitute a denial of due process. An “inmate’s right to present witnesses is necessarily circumscribed by the penological need to provide swift discipline in individual cases * * * [and] the very real dangers in prison life which may result from violence or intimidation directed at either other inmates or staff" *(Ponte v Real,*471 US 491, 495) and, accordingly, an inmate responding to charges at a disciplinary hearing has no unqualified right to present witnesses (39 RCNY 1-03 [a] [10] [iii]) and may not confront or cross-examine adverse witnesses (39 RCNY 1-03 [a] [10] [v]). Nor was petitioner denied effective assistance of a counsel substitute. Finally, upon respondents’ consent, the punishment is reduced as indicated.

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Williams, Saxe, Wallach and Friedman, JJ.
#### Barbara CHASON, Appellant, v. Fred F. ADAMS and John P. Hoke, Appellees.

No. 72-999.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 29, 1972.

Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Lucie County; Wallace Sample, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
Envirogen, Inc. on Form S-8 (File 333-09267), Form S-8 (File No. 33-54708), Form
S-3 (File No. 333-12883), Form S-3 (File No. 333-6991), Form S-3 (File No. 33-
78982) and Form S-3 (File No. 333-34021) of our report dated February 15, 2000,
on our audit of the consolidated financial statements and financial statement
schedule of Envirogen, Inc. as of December 31, 1999 and for the year ended
December 31, 1999, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.



                                              Ernst & Young LLP


MetroPark, New Jersey
March 27, 2000

                                      67
#### Bette HEFFERNAN, Petitioner, v. Jane H. GOLDMAN, Respondent

No. 41640.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 4, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 256 So.2d 522.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### Ada B. WEHRWEIN, Appellant, v. Ralph M. LORD, Jr., Appellee.

No. 72-158.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 20, 1972.

Appeal from Court of Record, Broward County; Humes T. Lasher, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
P.1 

OAR Box 1878 

Prepped by Charmelle Matltews 

Document Number: 

132) ll-E-16 

Docket Number: 

A-90-19 

Printed 11/28/20081:21:26 PM Sheet 132 of 145 
P.2 

JACA Corp. 

A-90-19 

ll-E-16 

550 Pinetown Rd. 

Ft. Washington, PA 19034 

215/643-5466 Fax: 215/643-2772 

Telephone Log 

Date: January 10, 1991 

Time: 

Project No.: 007219 

Project Name: HON 

Person Contacted/Title: 

Phone Number: (301) 763-5140 Fax: 

Company 

Representing: U.S. Department of rnmnerrP. Riirpaii nf thP fpnsiicr Trade Data 

Services 

JACA Representative: Andre Jenkins : 

Discussion: T askprf fnr thP iqaq-iqqn impnrt anri pypnrt fignrpc fnr Hydroquinone. 

Imports: 1989: 1,370,769 kq/$3,875,593 

Jan.-Oct. 1990: 1,272,639 kq/$4,150.721 

Exports: 1989: 950,463 kg/$4,469,090 

Jan.-Oct. 1990: 1,160,123 kg/$3,980,993 

\t IP R i'1

 *
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          15,259
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,640
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,450
<INVENTORY>                                     38,492
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                85,197
<PP&E>                                          44,758
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,096
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 124,309
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           33,356
<BONDS>                                         40,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,785
<OTHER-SE>                                      36,861
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   124,309
<SALES>                                         54,215
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                54,215
<CGS>                                           21,386
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   51,624
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    52
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 822
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,769
<INCOME-TAX>                                       708
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,061
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,061
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .13
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.01





Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In connection with the annual report of Futures Portfolio Fund, Limited Partnership (“Fund”), on Form 10-K for the yearended December 31, 2010 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(“Report”), I, Kenneth E. Steben,President and Chief Executive Officer of Steben & Company, Inc., the General Partner of the Fund,certify, pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley



Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350), that:




1.  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the U.S. 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 Fund.





By:
/s/ Kenneth E. StebenKenneth E. StebenPresident and Chief Executive Officer of the General Partner





March 25, 2011