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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-4177

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL ALLEN KENNEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin,

District Judge. (2:00-cr-00104)

Submitted: October 18, 2006 Decided: November 14, 2006

Before TRAXLER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,

Appellate Counsel, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant.

Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, Joanne Vella Kirby,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Michael Allen Kenney was charged with violating

supervised release by committing a crime. Specifically, his

probation officer alleged that Kenney violated release by operating

a clandestine methamphetamine laboratory in Putnam County, West

Virginia. Kenney denied the charge. Following a hearing, the

district court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Kenney

had violated release as charged. The court revoked Kenney’s

release and imposed a sentence of twenty-four months. Kenney

appeals. We affirm.

Kenney contends that the district court erred by finding

by a preponderance of the evidence, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3)

(2000), that Kenney participated in the manufacture or attempted

manufacture of methamphetamine. Testimony at the hearing revealed

that state police officers who responded to a trailer in Putnam

County noticed a strong smell of methamphetamine emanating from

inside the trailer. Officers discovered inside the trailer

precursor chemicals and paraphernalia used in the manufacture of

methamphetamine. When officers announced their presence, Kenney

fled out the trailer’s back door. Finally, Kenney’s girlfriend,

Jessica Searls, gave a written statement that she and Kenney were

at the trailer so that he could manufacture methamphetamine. We

conclude on the basis of this evidence that the district court did
- 3 -

not abuse its discretion in finding that Kenney had violated a term

of his release as charged. 

We accordingly affirm. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before us and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2012387EN.01000201.xml

| 15.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 387/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 387/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6485 — Euler Hermes/Mapfre/Mapfre CC)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 387/02

On 20 September 2012, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6485. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6485. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Exhibit 21



Form 10-K Item 15A (3) Exhibit 21



A. T. Cross Company

Subsidiaries, Branches and Divisions



A.T. Cross (Asia Pacific) Limited,
Hong Kong Branch
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region,
People's Republic of China

A.T. Cross (Asia Pacific) Limited,
Taiwan Branch
Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China

A.T. Cross Benelux B.V.,
Woerden, The Netherlands

A.T. Cross (Canada), Inc.,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada

A.T. Cross Company,
French Branch
Paris, France

A.T. Cross Deutschland GmbH,
Mainz, Federal Republic of Germany

A.T. Cross Iberia, S.L.,
Madrid, Spain

A.T. Cross Limited,
Ballinasloe, Republic of Ireland

A.T. Cross (U.K.) Limited,
Luton, Bedfordshire, England

A.T.X. International, Inc.,
Lincoln, Rhode Island

A.T.X. Ireland Limited,
Ballinasloe, Republic of Ireland

Cross Company of Japan, Limited,
Tokyo, Japan

Cross Pen Computing Group,
A Division of A. T. Cross Company
Lincoln, Rhode Island

43
#### Bernard Clinton FRIEDLANDER, Appellant, v. Elsie FRIEDLANDER, Appellee.

No. 73-882.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 30, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; James F. Minnet, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 21


                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    NAME                      JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION/ORGANIZATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<S>                                            <C>
Biotage, Ltd.                                  England and Wales
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Target Quest, LLC                              California
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Target Quest, Inc.                             California
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Target Quest B.V.                              The Netherlands
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Target Quest Holding B.V.                      The Netherlands
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>
260 La. 135

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Joseph SOLOMON, Jr. v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, et al.

No. 51969.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 20, 1971.

In re: Joseph Solomon, Jr. applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Writ granted: Evidentiary hearing ordered on allegation that, prior to guilty plea, court-appointed counsel had misinformed petitioner as to possible maximum sentence.
#### Maypat Realty Corp., Landlord, *v.*“John” Palmer, Tenant.

Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Manhattan,

May 21, 1953.

*464
      *Murry J. Cohen*for landlord.

*John Bradshaw Thorne*for tenant.

Cabney, J.

This proceeding was brought for nonpayment of the statutory rent claimed due on May 1, 1953, for the sum of $46.25. The premises is business property. Prior to June 1, 1944, the rent for the premises was $35 per month. The emergency rent from that date on became $40.25 per month, that is, $35 plus 15%. The landlord, however, continued to take $35 per month as rent until May 1, 1949. It then began receiving $40.25 each month until May 1,1953, when $46.25 was demanded and refused by the tenant. This demand for increased rent was based upon the new definition of emergency rent contained in the 1953 Business Rent Law (L. 1953, ch. 452, eff. April 2, 1953, amdg. L. 1945, ch. 314, as amd.). The purpose of the change in the definition of emergency rent was to permit landlords who had not received from a statutory tenant any increase over the emergency rent in effect on June 1, 1944, to obtain an increase of 15% above that emergency rent level. The reason for the amendment of the statute and the purpose is clearly set forth in the State Commission’s recommendation for the amendment. (1953 Report of New York State Temporary Commission to Study Rents and Rental Conditions, N. Y. Legis. Doc., 1953, No. 43, pp. 19-20.)

By the definition of emergency rent set forth in the 1953 law, this tenant not having paid since January 1,1947, a rent greater than the emergency rent of $40.25 clearly comes within the provisions of the statute and is liable for a rent which shall be the emergency rent in effect June 1,1944 ($40.25), plus 15% of that rent, namely, $46.29. The fact that the tenant has paid an increased rent since May 1, 1949, of $40.25 does not make the statute ineffective as to him. The increase from $35 to $40.25 merely increased the rent to the emergency rent level which could have in absence of a lease been charged from June 1, 1944. The tenant since January 1, 1947, has not paid any rent greater than the emergency rent.

The landlord is therefore entitled to a final order with money judgment of $46.25. Five days’ stay to tenant.
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 of Dynamic Health Products, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended June 30,
2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mandeep K. Taneja, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
section 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Mandeep K. Taneja                
|Mandeep K. Taneja                    
|Chief Executive Officer and President
|September 14, 2005
261 La. 544

#### Rufus BUTLER, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of his Minor Daughter, Tommy Lee Butler v. The CITY OF BOGALUSA et al.

No. 52376.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 18, 1972.

In re: Rufus Butler applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Washington. 258 So.2d 599.

Writ denied. We cannot say the result is incorrect.

BARHAM, J., is of the opinion the writ should be granted.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6335

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ROBERT WILLIAM PUCKETT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (CR-98-12; CA-99-161-7-F)

Submitted: September 15, 2004 Decided: September 27, 2004

Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert William Puckett, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Witcover Dean,

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*

For the purpose of this appeal, we construe Puckett’s first

request for a certificate of appealability as a notice of appeal

and find that the date appearing on that document is the earliest

date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for

mailing to the court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack,

487 U.S. 266 (1988).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Robert William Puckett seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice

of appeal was not timely filed.

When the United States or its officer or agency is a

party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days

after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order,

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is

“mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr.,

434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361

U.S. 220, 229 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on

April 22, 2003. The notice of appeal was filed on October 21,

2003.* Because Puckett failed to file a timely notice of appeal or

to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny

Puckett’s motion for 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 the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-03-00071-CR

Eddie Wayne Palmer, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 53,037, HONORABLE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

Appellant Eddie Wayne Palmer pleaded guilty to stealing property worth more than

$1500. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 31.03(a), (e)(4)(A) (West 2003). The court adjudged him guilty

and sentenced him to two years in state jail.

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is

frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no

arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573

S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974);

Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1969). A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant, and he was advised of his

right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.
2

We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous

and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

__________________________________________

Bea Ann Smith, Justice

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

Affirmed

Filed: December 4, 2003

Do Not Publish
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 7565** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

CARLOS ERNEST COWARD , Defendant

- Appellant

.

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

. Glen E. Conrad , Chief District Judge. ( 7:07

- cr
- 00069

- GEC

- 3 )

Submitted : February 23, 2016 Decided: February 26, 2016

Before MOTZ and GREGORY , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Carlos Ernest Coward, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Carlos E rnest Coward appeals the district court ’ s order denying his Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 motion to correct judgment. We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. United States v. C oward , No. 7:07

- cr
- 00069

- GEC

- 3 (W.D.
Va. Sept. 11, 2015) . We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before th is court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 11(a)


                            Blue Wave Systems Inc.

                      Computation of Per Share Net Income
                   (in thousands, except per share amounts)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                Three Months Ended
                                                                                                     March 31,
                                                                                             2001                 2000
                                                                                           -------               -------
<S>                                                                                        <C>                   <C>
Basic Net Income Per Share:
  Net income applicable to common stock                                                    $ 2,263               $   817
                                                                                           =======               =======

  Weighted average shares outstanding                                                       15,795                15,528

Basic net income per share                                                                 $  0.14               $  0.05
                                                                                           =======               =======

Diluted Net Income Per Share:
  Weighted average shares outstanding                                                       15,795                15,528

  Effect of common stock equivalents:
    Options granted and warrants issued                                                        919                 1,058
    Weighted average exercised options outstanding for portion of period,
      net of equivalent shares purchased at average fair market value                            5                   102
    Effect of using option and warrant proceeds to repurchase common stock
      at average fair market value                                                            (333)                 (171)
                                                                                           -------               -------
           Total common stock equivalents                                                      591                   989
                                                                                           -------               -------
  Weighted average diluted shares outstanding                                               16,386                16,517
                                                                                           -------               -------

Diluted net income per share                                                               $  0.14               $  0.05
                                                                                           =======               =======

</TABLE>
# C_2013265EN.01001101.xml

| 14.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 265/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 265/11

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

2013/C 265/06

Image

National side of the new commemorative 2-euro coin intended for circulation and issued by the Vatican City State

National side of the new commemorative 2-euro coin intended for circulation and issued by the Vatican City State

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the European Union providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

1

2

Issuing country: The Vatican City State

Subject of commemoration: Sede Vacante 2013

Description of the design: The design features the coat of arms of the Cardinal Camerlengo and above it the symbol of the Apostolic Camera, two small crosses, the words ‘CITTÀ DEL VATICANO’ at the left and ‘SEDE VACANTE MMXIII’ at the right.

The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Number of coins to be issued:

Date of issue: May 2013

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

1

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).

2

---