alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6136** 

DEREK DION CURTIS , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. JEFFERY L. NEWTON , Respondent

- Appellee , and CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA , Respondent
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. Claude M. Hilton , Senior District Judge. ( 1:12

- cv - 00827

- CMH

- TRJ )

Submitted : June 23, 2014 Decided: August 21, 2014

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Derek Dion Curtis, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Derek Curtis seeks to appeal the district court ’ s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court ’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c )(1) (A) (2012) ; Reid v. Angelone , 369 F. 3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004).
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 reli ef 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 petition 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 Curtis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability , deny him leave to proceed3 in forma pauperis, an d dismiss the appeal. 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.
DISMISSED
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Cynthia Westheimer v. Heidi Zieimer and all Heart Horse Farm Holdings., LLC

Appellate case number: 01

- 22

- 00967

- CV

Trial court case number: 93883

- CV

Trial court: 239th District Court of Brazoria County

The parties’ Agreed Motion for Briefing Schedule is GRANTED. The briefing schedule in this appeal shall be as follows:

• Appellant’s brief is due thirty days after the date the record is filed with the Court;

• T he combined appellee/cross

- appellant’s brief is due thirty days after the date the appellant’s brief is filed;

• The combined appellant’s reply/cross

- appellee’s brief is due thirty days after the date the appellee/cross

- appellant’s brief is filed; and

• The cr oss

- appellant’s reply brief is due twenty days after the date the cross

appellee’s brief is filed.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

______ / s/ Gordon Goodman

__________ Acting individually

Date: ____ January 31, 2023

_____
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>

THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES INCLUDED IN THIS FORM 10-K AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             595
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      632
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,785
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,091
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  16,083
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,173
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                           108
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,596
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    16,083
<SALES>                                          1,016
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,060
<CGS>                                              939
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,451
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 360
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    466
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                466
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       466
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7905

SHELBY L. COUNTS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JOHN R. NEWHART, Sheriff; RON ANGELONE, Virginia Department of Corrections,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Senior District

Judge. (CA-96-101-2)

Submitted: June 19, 1997 Decided: June 26, 1997

Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shelby L. Counts, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Lawrence Dumville,

Virginia Beach, Virginia; Lance Bradford Leggitt, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Counts

v. Newhart, No. CA-96-101-2 (E.D. Va. Nov. 6, 1996). We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, David M. Kepler, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Greenville FederalFinancial Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial 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 misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issueras of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4 The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to 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 the small business issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.    Date: December 27, 2005 /s/ David M. Kepler     David M. Kepler  President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Melody D. ASHCRAFT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles Thomas ALLIS, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 86CA0250.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I.

Nov. 5, 1987.

Gehler & Merrigan, Thomas E. Merrigan, Commerce City, for plaintiff-appellant.

*1275Stan M. Kimble, Kiowa, for defendant-appellee.

CRISWELL, Judge.

Melody D. Ashcraft (mother) appeals the trial court order modifying the child support obligation of Charles Thomas Allis (father). Mother contends that the trial court erred as a matter of law in that it applied provisions of the Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act, § 14-10-101, et seq., C.R.S., in modifying a previous support order entered under the Uniform Parentage Act, § 19-6-101, et seq., C.R.S. (1986 Repl. Vol. 8B). We agree and set aside the order.

The parties had a child in 1978 but did not marry. Father admitted paternity and was ordered to pay child support of $75 per month. The amount of monthly support was modified in proceedings in 1980. In 1985, mother moved for another increase in support.

After a hearing, the court modified the existing support order by increasing the amount of the support payment to $190 per month. In doing so, however, it applied the provisions of §§ 14-10-115 and 14-10-122, C.R.S., which set forth the criteria for a support order and a modification thereof under the Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act, rather than the comparable, but different, provisions of the Uniform Parentage Act. Sections 19-6-116 and 19-7-103, C.R. S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8B).

To modify a support order entered in a parentage action all that needs to be shown is a “change in relevant circumstances.” Section 19-7-103(4), C.R.S. (1986 RepLVol. 8B). In contrast, modification of a support order entered in a marriage dissolution action requires proof of “changed circumstances so substantial and continuing as to make [the previous order’s] terms unconscionable.” Section 14-10-122(1), C.R.S.

In addition, at the time of the hearing in this case, § 14-10-115, C.R.S., set out five factors required to be considered in determining the level of support in a dissolution action, while -some ten factors were required to be considered for such purpose in a parentage action. *See*§ 19-6-116(5), C.R.S. (1986 RepLVol. 8B).

A trial court has wide discretion in matters of support. *People in Interest of A.A.T.,*191 Colo. 494, 554 P.2d 302 (1976). However, if a district court applies the wrong legal standard in reaching its decision, its judgment will not be upheld on review. *See American National Bank v. First National Bank,*28 Colo.App. 486, 476 P.2d 304 (1970). Application of the dissolution statute to this parentage action constituted application of an improper legal standard to the evidence presented.

Since we cannot be sure that the district court would have reached the same result had it applied the proper statutory criteria, its order is set aside and this matter is remanded to it for reconsideration. Until a new order is entered, the father shall continue to pay the amount of support ordered by the most recent order of modification.

PIERCE and METZGER, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1  Certification Pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Michael Jordan Friedman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Fresh Harvest Products, Inc. (the Company), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:  1.  This Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended January 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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/ Michael Jordan Friedman _________________________________________ Michael Jordan Friedman, Chief Executive Officer And Chief Financial Officer  Date: March 26, 2007
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 13633]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5505]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging Proposed Consent Decree

    In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is 
hereby given that on March 2, 2012, a proposed Consent Decree was 
lodged with the United States District Court for the District of 
Massachusetts in United States v. Charles Johnson, et al., Civil Action 
No. 99-12465-EFH.
    The proposed Consent Decree would resolve the United States' claims 
against the defendants Charles Johnson, Genelda Johnson, Francis Vaner 
Johnson, and the Johnson Cranberries Limited Partnership (the 
``defendants'') for violations of sections 301(a) and 404 of the Clean 
Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311(a) and 1344. The proposed Consent Decree 
requires the defendants to pay a civil penalty and implement 
restoration and mitigation measures to create and restore wetlands in 
southeastern Massachusetts and to restore and perform compensatory 
mitigation at three existing cranberry bogs known as the Log Swamp Bogs 
off Great Meadow Drive in Carver, Massachusetts. The proposed Consent 
Decree also requires the defendants to restore wetlands at a site near 
Cross Street in Carver, Massachusetts, and an area of Beaver Dam Brook, 
which is at the Cross Street site.
    The Department of Justice will receive comments relating to the 
proposed Consent Decree for a period of thirty (30) days from the date 
of this publication. Comments should be addressed to Assistant United 
States Attorney George Henderson, 1 Courthouse Way, Suite 9200, Boston, 
Massachusetts, 02210, and should refer to United States v. Charles 
Johnson, et al., Civil Action No. 99-12465-EFH, DJ <greek-i> 90-5-1-1-
05720.
    The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Clerk's Office, 
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, 1 
Courthouse Way, Suite 2300, Boston, Massachusetts 02210, and at Region 
1 of the Environmental Protection Agency, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 
100, Boston, Massachusetts 02109-3912. In addition, the proposed 
Consent Decree may be examined electronically at http://www.justice.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html.

Cherie L. Rogers,
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Defense Section, Environment & 
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 2012-5505 Filed 3-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
# L_2006081EN.01000901.xml

| 18.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 81/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 81/9

---

COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION

of 14 March 2006

concerning the discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the operations of the European Development Fund (Sixth EDF) for the financial year 2004

(2006/220/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to the Third ACP-EEC Convention, signed at Lomé on 8 December 1984,

Having regard to Internal Agreement 86/126/EEC on the financing and administration of Community aid (1), and in particular Article 29(3) thereof,

Having regard to the Financial Regulation of 11 November 1986 applicable to the Sixth European Development Fund (Sixth EDF) (2), and in particular Articles 66 to 73 thereof,

Having examined the revenue and expenditure account and the balance sheet relating to the Sixth EDF as at 31 December 2004 and the Court of Auditors' report concerning the financial year 2004 together with the Commission's replies (3),

Whereas pursuant to Article 29(3) of the Internal Agreement, the discharge for the financial management of the Sixth EDF is to be given to the Commission by the European Parliament on the recommendation of the Council;

Whereas the overall implementation by the Commission of the operations of the Sixth EDF during the financial year 2004 has been satisfactory,

HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the European Parliament give the Commission a discharge in respect of the implementation of the operations of the Sixth EDF for the financial year 2004.

Done at Brussels, 14 March 2006.

For the Council

The President

K.-H. GRASSER

---

(1)  
  OJ L 86, 31.3.1986, p. 210. Agreement as last amended by Council Decision 86/281/EEC (OJ L 178, 2.7.1986, p. 13).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 325, 20.11.1986, p. 42.

2

(3)  
  OJ C 301, 30.11.2005, p. 249.

3

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

                    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage                     *de novo,*                     or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.                

Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 23, 2012.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:

                    1.                     *Carver Financial Corporation, Savannah, Georgia,*                     to retain control of Carver Development CDE I LLC, Savannah, Georgia, and thereby continue to engage in community development activities pursuant to section 225.28 (b)(12)(i) of Regulation Y.                

      ( print page 14016)    

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 2, 2012.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2012-5591 Filed 3-7-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P