alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
2000 ANNUAL REPORT
 

[ Photo - caption on next page ]

 

[ A.T. Cross Company Logo ]

 

 

1 - 3
Shareholders' Report
4 - 5
Rewriting the Pen
6
Five Year Summary, Market
[ Photo - caption below ]
& Dividend Information 
7
Consolidated Balance
Sheets
8
Consolidated Statements
of Operations
8
Consolidated Statements
of Comprehensive Income
(Loss)
9
Consolidated Statements
of Changes in
Shareholders' Equity
10
Consolidated Statements
The first exclusive Cross retail boutique opened in Hong Kong in 2000.
of Cash Flows
[ A.T. Cross Company Logo ]
11 - 22
Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements
23
Independent Auditors'
Report
A.T. Cross Company Profile
24 - 28
Management's Discussion
& Analysis
inside
Directors, Officers &
The A.T. Cross Company is a major manufacturer of fine
back
Corporate Information
cover
quality writing instruments with worldwide distribution.
Featured on the cover is ionä, the new gel ink
#### Anna LIPSKY, Appellant, v. Rose R. SWARTZ, Appellee.

Nos. 71-151, 71-152.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 29, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appeals dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7312

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ERIC SMITH, a/k/a Capone, a/k/a Pone,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Arenda L. Wright Allen, 

District Judge. (4:08-cr-00147-AWA-FBS-14; 4:12-cv-00136-AWA)

Submitted: January 22, 2015 Decided: January 27, 2015

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt, Howard Jacob 

Zlotnick, Assistant United States Attorneys, Newport News, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Eric Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

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 Smith 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 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED