alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
49977.

#### KENT v. THE STATE.

Argued January 9, 1975

Decided April 18, 1975.

*Worozbyt & Beskin, Theodore S. Worozbyt, Donald C. Beskin,*for appellant.

*Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, H. Allen Moye, Isaac Jenrette, Joseph J. Drolet, Assistant District Attorneys,*for appellee.

Quillian, Judge.

The defendant was tried and convicted of violation of the Georgia Drug Abuse Control Act. An appeal was filed and the case is here for review. *Held:*

1. The evidence though in conflict was sufficient to authorize a finding that the execution of the search warrant was valid. See Code Ann. § 27-308 (Ga. L. 1966, pp. 567, 570).

2. The overruling of the motion for a new trial was not error.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Pannell, P. J., and Clark, J., concur.*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-40899

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CLIFFORD BERNARD NELSON, also known as Dummy,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:01-CR-32-1

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Clifford Bernard Nelson, federal prisoner # 05790-078, convicted of

possession with intent to distribute, and distribution of, crack cocaine, appeals

his reduced sentence imposed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). He argues that

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), applies to § 3582(c)(2) proceedings

and, as such, the district court was authorized to sentence him below the

amended guidelines range. The Government has moved for summary affirmance

and, alternatively, for an extension of time in which to file a brief, and the

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 20, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-40899

2

Federal Public Defender has moved to withdraw to allow Nelson to proceed pro

se on appeal.

The issue Nelson raises is foreclosed by our recent decision in United

States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 236-39 (5th Cir. 2009), petition for cert. filed

(Sept. 21, 2009) (No. 09-6657), which held that Booker is inapplicable to sentence

reductions under § 3582(c) and, thus, that a district court cannot reduce a

sentence below the minimum provided in the amended guidelines range. As

such, Nelson’s judgment is affirmed, and the Government’s motion for summary

affirmance is granted. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is denied. Cf. United

States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).

AFFIRMED; MOTION FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE GRANTED;

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF DENIED; MOTION TO

WITHDRAW DENIED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1684

In Re: DWIGHT AVON MAJOR,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(5:12-hc-02098-D)

Submitted: October 30, 2015 Decided: November 18, 2015

Before KING, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dwight Avon Major, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM: 

Dwight Avon Major petitions this court for a writ of

mandamus, seeking an order directing his immediate release from

prison. However, Major was released from prison on July 27, 

2015. Thus, the mandamus petition is moot because Major has 

already obtained the relief he seeks. Accordingly, although we 

grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny his petition 

for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

PETITION DENIED
#### Pierre BERRYER, Appellant, v. Stephen G. HERTZ, Appellee.

No. 86-903.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 10, 1987.

Robert P. Lithman, Miami, for appellant.

Stephens, Lynn, Chernay & Klein and Robert M. Klein, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, NESBITT and FERGUSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See Manner v. Goldstein Professional Ass’n,*436 So.2d 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (in divorce action, spouse not permitted to avoid terms of property settlement agreement by simultaneous oral declaration); *N.A. Kerson Co., Inc. v. Shayne, Dachs, Weiss, Kolbrenner, Levy & Moe Levine,*45 N.Y.2d 730, 408 N.Y.S.2d 475, 380 N.E.2d 302 (App.1978) (in legal malpractice action, where plaintiffs alleged that attorney had improperly entered into a stipulation withdrawing an affirmative defense in was later settled by stipulation entered in open court, plaintiffs were required to prove that they would have succeeded but for the withdrawal of the affirmative defense); *cf. Cohen v. Lipsig,*92 A.D.2d 536, 459 N.Y.S.2d 98 (App.Div.1983) (a cause of action for legal malpractice is viable despite plaintiffs settlement of underlying action when such settlement was compelled because of the mistakes of defendant, plaintiffs former counsel).
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JAN 15, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 07-10080

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 06-00136-CR-WS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ERVIN BERNARD EARL,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Alabama

_________________________

(January 15, 2009)

Before BLACK, BARKETT and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Barre C. Dumas, appointed counsel for Ervin Bernard Earl, has filed a
motion to withdraw on appeal supported by a brief prepared pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent

review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of

the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals

no issues of arguable merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and

Earl’s convictions are AFFIRMED. We note, however, that the judgment and the

order memorializing the jury’s verdict incorrectly substitute 18 U.S.C. § 1853 for

18 U.S.C. § 1513. Therefore, we VACATE and REMAND with instructions that

the district court correct the judgment and the order memorializing the jury’s

verdict by replacing 18 U.S.C. § 1853 with 18 U.S.C. § 1513.

2
50026.

#### DAVENPORT v. PETROLEUM DELIVERY SERVICE OF GEORGIA, INC.

Bell, Chief Judge.

This action, sounding in tort, was brought against defendant corporation in Forsyth County where it conducted its only place of business. The tort occurred in DeKalb County. Defendant was originally incorporated in Fulton County and designated an office and agent in Atlanta. Prior to the filing of this action, the agent resigned and notified the secretary of state. Defendant did not designate a new agent and office. Defendant moved to dismiss the action for improper venue, which motion was granted. *Held:*

Plaintiff urges that a corporation may be sued in the county in which it actually has its agent and place of business in addition to those in which it is statutorily permissible. See Code Ann. §§ 22-404 and 22-5301. To hold otherwise, plaintiff contends, would constitute a statutory abridgment of Art. VI, Sec. XIV, Par. VI of the Constitution of the State of Georgia (Code Ann. § 2-4906). The argument is without merit. It has long been the law of Georgia that, "The constitutional provision simply prescribes that the suits must be brought in the county of the defendant’s residence, and the whole subject of domicile and residence of persons both natural and artificial is left to be determined by the General Assembly.” *Gilbert v. Georgia Railroad &c. Co.,*104 Ga. 412, 416 (30 SE 673). In short, the right of the General Assembly to create a corporation carries with it the power to designate its venue. See *Martin & Thompson v. Allen,*188 Ga. 42, 45 (2 SE2d 668). Here, the plaintiff could not bring suit in DeKalb County where the accident occurred for the defendant had no agent or place of business there. Code Ann. § 22-5301. Venue, however, was available in Fulton County, for the statute reads "For the purpose of determining venue. . . [I]f any such corporation fails to maintain a registered office it shall be deemed to reside in the county in this State where its last-named registered office..., as shown by the records of the Secretary of State, was maintained...” Code Ann. § 22-404 (b). See also *Saint Francis Hospital, Inc. v. Dion,*123 Ga. App. 360 (181 SE2d *41972).

Argued January 6, 1975

Decided March 19, 1975

Rehearing denied April 2, 1975

*Spence & Knighton, Virgil C. Spence,*for appellant.

*Hurt, Richardson, Garner & Todd, Paul M. Talmadge, Jr.,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Webb and Marshall, JJ., concur.*
#### Angelo Fava, Respondent, *v.*Dunton Lodge Realty Company et al., Defendants, and Catharine I. L. Paget et al., Appellants.

*Fava*v. *Dunton Lodge Realty Co..*163 App. Div. 871, affirmed.

(Submitted March 9, 1916;

decided March 24, 1916.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered April 14, 1914, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien. Appellants alleged for a first defense that prior to the filing of plaintiff’s notice of lien plaintiff had personal and actual knowledge that the appellants Paget and Hicks were purchasers in good faith and for value of the premises; that plaintiff filed his notice of lien after such knowledge, and that the hen, if any, is subject and subordinate to the title of the appellants. For a second defense they allege that prior to the filing of plaintiff’s lien, plaintiff, for a valuable consideration, entered into a valid contract extending the time of payment of any moneys due, or to grow due, on account of the matter at issue until a time subsequent to the filing of his notice of lien, and subsequent to the recording of the deed to these appellants; and that at the time of the filing of the notice of lien and of the recording of the deed to these appellants no money was due to the plaintiff under the contract.

*Benjamin Reass, Hugo Hirsh*and *Emanuel Newman*for appellants.

*J. H. Denenholz*and *Benjamin Marvin*for respondent

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Willard Bartlett, Ch. J., Hiscock, Chase, Cuddeback, Hogan, Cardozo and Pound, JJ.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Victor SIMMONS, Jr.

No. 88-KK-0307.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 22, 1988.

In re Simmons, Victor Jr.; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Supervisory Writ; Parish of Lafayette Lafayette City Court Div. “A” Number DT-87-0260; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Number KW88-0042.

Denied.

DIXON, C.J.,

would grant the writ.

See dissent in *State v. Henderson,*491 So.2d 647, 651 (La.1986).
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2258 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Tetramethrin. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 

Tetramethrin. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. TETRAMETHRIN. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.24.34 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended 

6 by striking ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

8 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

9 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

10 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2032 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on p-Methylacetophenone. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. MENENDEZ introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on pMethylacetophenone. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. P-METHYLACETOPHENONE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.01.38 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 p-Methylacetophenone) is amended by striking the date in 

7 the effective period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2032 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit
      32**





Certification
      of Principal Executive and Financial Officer


Pursuant
      to


Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter ended
      March 31, 2006 (the “Report”) of Highbury Financial Inc. (the “Registrant”), as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, the
      undersigned hereby certify that, to the best of the undersigneds’ knowledge:




(1)         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 Registrant for the
      period certified.




Date:
                October 13, 2006
            
            By:
            
            /s/
                Richard S. Foote**Richard
                S. Foote****President
                and Chief Executive Officer****(Principal
                Executive Officer)**By:
            
            /s/
                R. Bradley Forth**R.
                Bradley Forth****Executive
                Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and
                Secretary****(Principal
                Financial Officer)**
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 Annual Report of Zeros & Ones, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dana R. Waldman, Chief Executive Officer 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 to my 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 result of operations of the Company.



|               |                         | 
|-------------- | ----------------------- | 
|               |                         | 
|March 13, 2007 | /s/ Dana R. Waldman    
|               | Dana R. Waldman        
|               | Chief Executive Officer
#### JTS REALTY CORPORATION, et al. v. CITY OF BATON ROUGE, et al.

No. 87-C-0326.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 13, 1987.

In re Baton Rouge, City of; Riverside Centroplex Dev. Group — Other; applying *20for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 86 CA 0695; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. “H”, No. 298536.

Prior report: La.App., 499 So.2d 274.

Denied.
Exhibit 31.4

Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Brian C. Henry, certify that:

1. I have
reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of Cray Inc.; and

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain
any untrue statement of a material 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 misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

Date: March 18, 2011



By:

/s/ BRIAN C. HENRYBrian C. Henry Chief
Financial Officer and Executive Vice President
Exhibit 35.1**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc.American Express Credit Account Master TrustReporting Period January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007The undersigned, a duly authorized representative of American Express Travel Related ServicesCompany, Inc. (“TRS”), as Servicer pursuant to the American Express Credit Account Master Trust(the “Trust”) Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of May 6, 1996, as amended and restated asof January 1, 2006 (the “Agreement”), and as amended in the First Amendment to the Pooling andServicing Agreement, dated as of December 17, 2007, among American Express Receivables FinancingCorporation II, American Express Receivables Financing Corporation III LLC, and American ExpressReceivables Financing Corporation IV LLC, as transferors, TRS, as servicer, and The Bank of NewYork, as trustee and securities intermediary (the “Trustee”), does hereby certify that:1. TRS is Servicer under the Agreement.2. The undersigned is duly authorized as required pursuant to the Agreement to execute and deliverthis Certificate.3. A review of the Servicer’s activities during the reporting period and of its performance underthe Agreement has been made under my supervision.4. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period.IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 14th day ofMarch, 2008.AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL RELATED SERVICES COMPANY, INC.     By: /s/ Stephen J. Bakonyi  Name:  Stephen J. Bakonyi  Title: Vice President
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 Marine Growth  Ventures,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "report"),  each of
the  undersigned  certifies,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Action of 2002, that to the best
of 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: August 7, 2006                 By: /s/  Craig Hodgkins
                                          -----------------------
                                          Craig Hodgkins
                                          President and Director
                                          (Principal Executive Officer)
#### John Wiley SIMPKINS v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE.

No. 88-C-0006.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 5, 1988.

In re Simpkins, John Wiley; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 19167-CA; Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court, Div. “F”, No. 303452.

Denied.
Exhibit 23.1



                       Consent of Independent Accountants


We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements  on Form S-8 (No.  333-2978,  333-32481  and  333-60018),  and in the
prospectus  constituting  part of the  Registration  Statement  on Form S-3 (No.
333-47719)  of CFC  International,  Inc. of our report  dated  February 12, 2003
relating to the financial  statements  and financial  statement  schedule  which
appears in this Form 10-K.

                                           /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Chicago, Illinois
March 19, 2003
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2314 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 4,4′-Oxydiphthalic anhydride. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. BROWN (for himself and Mr. VOINOVICH) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 4,4′- 

Oxydiphthalic anhydride. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. 4,4′-OXYDIPHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.05.13 of sub5 chapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Sched6 ule of the United States (relating to 4,4′-Oxydiphthalic an7 hydride) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and insert8 ing ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 this section applies with respect to goods entered, or withVerDate Nov 24 2008 05:25 Oct 31, 2009 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S2314.IS S2314

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2314 IS

1 drawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 

2 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### STATE ex rel. James PRESTON v. Frank A. MARULLO, Jr., Judge, Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana.

No. 86-KH-2534.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 25, 1987.

In re Preston, James; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “D”, No. 206-572.

Denied.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 20

- 14256 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 6:02

- cr - 00073

- LSC

- GMB

- 23
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus
CLARENCE GENE SHANKLIN, SR., Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama

________________________ ( May 12, 2021 ) Before WILSON , RO S ENBAUM, and BLACK , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

USCA11 Case: 20-14256 Date Filed: 05/12/2021 Page: 1 of 22 W. Scott Brower , appointed counsel for Clarence Gene Shanklin, Sr., in this criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the
app ellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire re cord reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED , and Shanklin’s revocation of supervised release and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

USCA11 Case: 20-14256 Date Filed: 05/12/2021 Page: 2 of 2