alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7031
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CLEVELAND MCLEAN, JR., a/k/a Junior, a/k/a June, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CR-90-105) Submitted: October 14, 2004 Decided: October 21, 2004 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cleveland McLean, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Cleveland McLean, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as successive. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McClean has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, grant McLean’s motions to supplement, deny his motion for default, and dismiss the appeal. To the extent that McLean’s notice of appeal and appellate brief could be construed as a motion for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, we deny authorization. SeeUnited States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003), cert. denied , 124 S. Ct. 496 (2003). We dispense with oral argument- 3 - because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>         9
<MULTIPLIER>      1,000

<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         11,926
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             62
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                    0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                    0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    46,489
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         13,843
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           13,473
<LOANS>                                       182,623
<ALLOWANCE>                                     2,099
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                259,889
<DEPOSITS>                                    202,354
<SHORT-TERM>                                   21,215
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             2,273
<LONG-TERM>                                    13,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                        1,805
<OTHER-SE>                                     19,241
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                259,889
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                14,065
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               3,472
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                  135
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               17,671
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              7,585
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              8,598
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           9,073
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                     460
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 6,221
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 3,656
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      3,656
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    2,589
<EPS-BASIC>                                    2.93
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    2.93
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   4.22
<LOANS-NON>                                       620
<LOANS-PAST>                                        0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                   427
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                1,947
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                     432
<RECOVERIES>                                      124
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               2,099
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            2,099
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             0


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-40443

Summary Calendar

 

MOSES SMITH, JR.

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR,

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL

JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:95-CV-967

- - - - - - - - - -

October 28, 1996

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Moses Smith, Jr., Texas prisoner #579393, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as

successive under Rule 9(b) of the Rules Governing § 2255

Proceedings. Smith argues that his prior convictions may not be

used to enhance his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) because the

convictions were related. Smith originally filed a 28 U.S.C.
No. 96-40443

- 2 -

§ 2254 habeas petition, and the district court construed it as a

motion to vacate, correct, or set aside his sentence under 28

U.S.C. § 2255. However, the district court did not substitute

the United States as the proper respondent after determining that

Smith’s action should be construed as a § 2255 motion. 

Although Smith did not receive notice that the district

court was considering dismissing his action as an abuse of the

writ under Rule 9(b), Smith filed objections to the magistrate

judge’s report responding to the recommendation that his action

be dismissed under Rule 9(b). Because Smith filed a response to

the proposed Rule 9(b) dismissal, the district court’s failure to

give Smith notice of the Rule 9(b) dismissal was harmless error. 

See Johnson v. McCotter, 803 F.2d 830, 832 (5th Cir. 1986).

Smith’s appellate brief does not address the district

court’s dismissal of his § 2255 motion as successive under Rule

9(b). Smith has not shown cause or prejudice for his failure to

raise this specific argument in his first § 2255 motion. 

McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 493-94 (1991). Smith has also

failed to allege that a fundamental miscarriage of justice would

result if the court does not hear his claim because he is

actually innocent of the offense for which he was convicted. 

See id. Therefore, Smith has not shown that he is entitled to

relief. The district court did not abuse its discretion in

construing Smith’s petition as a § 2255 motion and in dismissing

it as successive under Rule 9(b). See United States v. Flores,
No. 96-40443

- 3 -

981 F.2d 231, 234 (5th Cir. 1993). 

AFFIRMED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Santiago Roldan, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Andrias, J.), rendered August 3, 1988, convicting defendant after a jury trial of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent, indeterminate terms of imprisonment of five to ten years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was arrested when police officers, from an observation post, observed him engage in several narcotics sales. At the beginning of deliberations, the jury asked for various items of physical evidence, as well as certain lab reports and the lab reports that had not been entered into evidence. The court, without objection, instructed a court officer to advise the jurors that the reports were not in evidence. On appeal, defendant contends that the procedure violated his right to be present at his trial, and constituted an improper delegation of the court’s function.

Neither claim has been preserved for appellate review as a matter of law. Were we to consider defendant’s arguments in the interest of justice, we would find them without merit. Defendant was not absent during a "material” part of the trial, and the court officer did not convey any instruction that concerned defendant’s ability to defend himself. *(People v Mullen,*44 NY2d 1, 5; *People v Velasco,*77 NY2d 469; *People v Van,*161 AD2d 326, *lv denied*76 NY2d 867.)

We also find that the court’s decision to adjourn the case for one day before the start of jury selection was not an abuse of discretion. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Asch, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.
----

**EXHIBIT        32.2**

**SECTION          1350 CERTIFICATION**

**OF          THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

| (1)   | the                  Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months                  ended                  June 30, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of                  Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,                  as amended,                  and |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2)   | the                  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of                  the                  Company. |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          27,589
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,639
<ALLOWANCES>                                       207
<INVENTORY>                                      3,122
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                52,569
<PP&E>                                         130,792
<DEPRECIATION>                                  59,889
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 129,135
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           58,363
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            64
<OTHER-SE>                                      40,277
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   129,135
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               304,746
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  270,387
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   218
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 35,232
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,482
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             21,750
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    21,750
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.40
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32



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, Vincent Verdiramo, President of Serino 5, Corp. (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 July 31, 2005 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.

Date:  September 14, 2005

/s/ Vincent L. Verdiramo

___________________________



President
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Richard C. Larson, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 ofWauwatosa Holdings, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich 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 effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased 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 fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee 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 reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date: November 2, 2005 /s/ Richard C. Larson  RichardC. Larson,Chief Financial Officer
-37-
Exhibit
32.2








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 on Form 10-Q of AgFeed Industries, Inc.
(the “Company”) for the quarter ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Liangfan
Yan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:





(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.





Dated:  May
      15, 2008
            By:
      /s/ Liangfan
  YanLiangfan
      YanChief
      Financial Officer





This
certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

Consent of Independent Accountants

         We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-19541, 333-39361 and 333-66334) and Form S-3
(File No. 333-31863) of Personnel Group of America, Inc. of our report dated
March 28, 2002 relating to the financial statements, which appears as Exhibit
13.1 in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.



                                                  /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

                                                      PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Charlotte, North Carolina
March 29, 2002
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each
of the undersigned officers of Vital Products, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 30, 2011 (the
"Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the
information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date: June 14, 2011


By: /s/ Michael Levine
----------------------------------------
Michael Levine, Chief Executive Officer,
Principal Executive Officer, President,
Chairman of the Board and Director



By: /s/ Michael Levine
----------------------------------------
Michael Levine, Chief Financial Officer,
Principal Financial Officer and
Principal Accounting Officer
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                     Washington, D.C.  20549


                          FORM 10-K/A


     ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
                SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 
           For the fiscal year ended December 31, 1996


Purpose:  To supplement in part Part IV, Item 14(c) of Company's
          previously filed Form 10-K in order to file as an exhibit
          the Annual Servicing Report of Company's Independent
          Public Accountants. 


                  Commission File Nos. 0-28110


              HOUSEHOLD CONSUMER LOAN TRUST 1995-1 
     (Exact name of Registrant as specified in Department
      of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service Form SS-4)

HOUSEHOLD FINANCE CORPORATION
(Administrator of the Trust)
(Exact name as specified in Administrator's charter)


            DELAWARE                      36-3670374             
(State or other jurisdiction of   (I.R.S. Employer Identification
incorporation of Administrator)   Number of Registrant


 2700 SANDERS ROAD, PROSPECT HEIGHTS, ILLINOIS         60070     
(Address of principal executive offices of           (Zip Code)
Administrator)


Administrator's telephone number, including area code(847)564-5000












<PAGE>













                           SIGNATURES




     Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Administrator has duly caused
this amendment to be signed on behalf of the Household Consumer
Loan Trust 1995-1 by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.




                             HOUSEHOLD FINANCE CORPORATION,
                         as Administrator of and on behalf of the

                           HOUSEHOLD CONSUMER LOAN TRUST 1995-1
                                    (Registrant)




Date:  May 9, 1997            By:/s/John W. Blenke              
                                 John W. Blenke
                                 Assistant Secretary



















<PAGE>






                          Exhibit Index


Exhibit No.    Exhibit                                      Page
No.

99             Copy of Independent Public Accountants          4
               Annual Servicing Report dated March 26, 1997.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-2331
DANIEL J. EARNSHAW, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BARBARA E. JACKSON, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-96- 1101-AMD) Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 20, 1997 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel J. Earnshaw, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Lawrence Paul Fletcher-Hill, Assistant Attorney General, Margaret Witherup Tindall, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. 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 recordand the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Although we note that dilution of legitimate votes can result in a violation of the "one person, one vote" principle and offend the Equal Protection Clause, see, e.g. , Daly v. Hunt , 93 F.3d 1212 (4th Cir. 1996), we agree with the district court that Appellant failed to state a claim of dilution. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. Earnshaw v. Jackson , No. CA-96-1101-AMD (D. Md. Aug. 13, 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