alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 13

- 13523 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 7:12

- cr - 00036

- HL

- TQL

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus BACARI MCCARTHREN, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis trict of Georgia

________________________ (September 26, 2014) Before MARTIN , HILL and FAY , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Case: 13-13523 Date Filed: 09/26/2014 Page: 1 of 22 Rick Collum, appointed counsel for Bacari McCarthren, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Ande rs 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 revea ls no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion is GRANTED , and McCarthren’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.

Case: 13-13523 Date Filed: 09/26/2014 Page: 2 of 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

GIGERE JACKSON

,

Defendant Below,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Appel lee. §

§ No. 2 83 , 2023

§

§ Court Below

– Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§

§ Cr. ID No

. 1707014544 (N)

§

§

§

Submitted: October 9 , 2023

Decided: December 19 , 202 3

Before SEITZ , Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR

, Justices.

ORDER

After consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the appellee’s motion to

affirm, and the record on appeal, we find it evident that the judgment below should

be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons cited by the Superior Court in its J uly

18 , 2023 order denying the appellant’s motion for correction of an illegal sentence. 1

Absent plain error, which we do not find here, we decline to consider the arguments

that the appellant raises for the first time on appeal. 2

1 State v. Jackson , 2023 WL 4614534 (Del. Super. Ct. J uly 18 , 2023).

2 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 8.2

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior

Court be AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ K aren L. Valihura

Justice
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

I, G.J. Hart, ChiefExecutive Officer of Texas Roadhouse, Inc. (the “Company”), certify,pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, that:

(1)   The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of theCompany for the quarterly period ended September 25, 2007 (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.
|  Date: November 2, 2007 | By:    |   | /s/  G.J. HART           |   |
|------------------------------|--------|--------|------------------------------------|--------|
|                         |   |   |                               |
|                         |   |   | G.J. Hart                     |
|                         |   |   | President, Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
J-S09010-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

STEPHEN A. EVANS

Appellant No. 1179 MDA 2015

Appeal from the PCRA Order May 5, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-22-CR-0000448-2010

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., LAZARUS, J., and JENKINS, J. 

JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED MARCH 15, 2016

Appellant, Stephen A. Evans, appeals from the order dismissing his 

petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”) without a 

hearing. After a careful review, we find that all of Evans’s issues on appeal 

have been waived due to his failure to file a statement of matters 

complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). We therefore affirm.

A jury convicted Evans of multiple counts arising from a jewelry store 

robbery. After exhausting his direct appellate rights, Evans filed a timely pro 

se PCRA petition. Counsel was appointed to represent Evans, but she 

subsequently was released from the case by the PCRA court. The PCRA court 

gave notice of its intent to dismiss Evans’s petition without a hearing. After 

reviewing Evans’s pro se response, the PCRA court entered an order 

dismissing the petition on May 5, 2015. This timely appeal followed.
J-S09010-16

- 2 -

On July 15, 2015, the PCRA court directed Evans to file a statement of 

matters complained of an appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(1). Evans 

concedes that he never filed a response to the trial court’s order. See 

Appellant’s Reply Brief, at 5.

In Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775, 780 (Pa. 2005), our 

Supreme Court reaffirmed the bright-line rule announced in 

Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998), requiring appellants to 

comply with trial court orders for a Rule 1925(b) statement. The decision in 

Lord made it clear that any issues not raised in a Rule 1925(b) statement 

will be deemed waived. See 719 A.2d at 309. The Castillo Court expressly 

disapproved of prior decisions that carved out exceptions to that rule. See

888 A.2d at 780.

We recently reiterated the “automatic nature” of the waiver of issues 

for failure to comply with Rule 1925(b) and that “we are required to address 

the issue once it comes to our attention.” Greater Erie Indus. 

Development Corp. v. Presque Isle Downs, Inc., 88 A.3d 222, 224 (Pa. 

Super. 2014) (en banc). In Presque Isle Downs, the en banc panel

examined Pennsylvania Supreme Court cases construing Rule 1925(b) and 

noted that “our Supreme Court does not countenance anything less than 

stringent application of waiver pursuant” to that rule. Id. (citation omitted).

Accordingly, Evans has waived his issues on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 
J-S09010-16

- 3 -

1925(b)(4)(vii) (“Issues not included in the Statement and/or not raised in 

accordance with the provisions of this paragraph (b)(4) are waived.”).

Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/15/2016
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 Charys Holding Company, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended April 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Billy
V. Ray, Jr., 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:

     1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.

     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.



                                      /s/ Billy  V.  Ray,  Jr.
                                      ------------------------------------
                                      Billy V. Ray, Jr., Chief Executive Officer
                                      Date:  August  13,  2004


                                        3
<PAGE>
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Saul WHITTAKER.

No. 87-KH-0239.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 20, 1987.

In re Whittaker, Saul; applying for writ of habeas corpus; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “H”, No. 310-091.

Denied. Relator must first request the records he seeks from the public records custodian.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2406 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2406

  To extend the temporary reduction of duty on acrylic or modoacrylic 
staple fibers, not carded, combed, or otherwise processed for spinning.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

  Mrs. Hagan introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend the temporary reduction of duty on acrylic or modoacrylic 
staple fibers, not carded, combed, or otherwise processed for spinning.

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

SECTION 1. ACRYLIC OR MODOACRYLIC STAPLE FIBERS, NOT CARDED, COMBED, OR 
              OTHERWISE PROCESSED FOR SPINNING.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.25.62 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to acrylic or modoacrylic 
staple fibers, not carded, combed, or otherwise processed for spinning) 
is amended by striking ``12/31/2009'' and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 9/24/96 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. CLARA J. ARAUJO and MARY E. MARTINEZ,

Defendants-Appellants. No. 96-4057 (D.C. No. 95-CV-234-W) (D. Utah)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before PORFILIO, LOGAN, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Defendants Clara J. Araujo and Mary E. Martinez, ap pearing pro se, appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny their motions to vacate, set aside or correct sente nce, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. They claim entitlement to relief on the gr ounds that (1) the evidence of drugs in their car should have been suppressed at trial, (2) they received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, and (3) they are entitled to the benefit of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). We review de novo the district court’s legal ruling s, its interpretation and application of the federal sentencing guidelines, a nd its legal conclusions regarding the claims of ineffective assistance of c ounsel. Rogers v. United States , 91 F.3d 1388, 1392 (10th Cir. 1996). The district court’s findings of fact are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard. Unite d States v. Cox , 83 F.3d 336, 338 (10th Cir. 1996). We have carefully reviewed the district court record and the materials submitted by the parties. We affirm the judgment of the district court for substantially the reasons stated in the m agistrate judge’s report and recommendation dated December 29, 1995.-3-

The judgment of the United States District Court fo r the District of Utah is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

John C. Porfilio Circuit Judge
#### Elmer CORNETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 86-35.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 1, 1987.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and William H. Pasch, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert J. Krauss, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

DANAHY, Chief Judge.

In 1980 the defendant pled nolo contender e to a charge of sexual battery and was placed on probation for seven years. In 1984 an affidavit of violation of probation was filed against the defendant.

A violation of probation hearing was held and evidence submitted by the state in support of the probation violation charges. The trial judge found the defendant had violated conditions 1, 3, 4 and 5 of his probation. The defendant did not elect to be sentenced under the guidelines and received a sentence of thirty years imprisonment. He appeals, asserting two issues; first, that the trial judge erred in failing to enter a written order of probation violation, *89and second, that the trial judge should have noted on the sentencing order that the defendant is eligible for parole consideration.

We reject the state’s argument that the court appearance record and the uniform commitment to custody, both of which indicate probation violation, suffice as a formal order of revocation of probation. Accordingly, we reverse with directions that the trial judge enter an order of probation violation. *See Smith v. State,*492 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). The defendant need not be present for this purpose.

With regard to parole eligibility, we acknowledge in this opinion that the defendant is eligible to be considered for parole in view of the fact that his sentence was not imposed pursuant to the sentencing guidelines.

Reversed and remanded.

SCHOONOVER and SANDERLIN, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MICHAEL TOWNS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 498 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 27th day of March, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 185 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 185

   Recognizing and commending the personnel of Eglin Air Force Base, 
 Florida, for their participation and efforts in support of the North 
  Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO) Operation Allied Force in the 
                             Balkan region.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 24, 1999

 Mr. Graham submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Recognizing and commending the personnel of Eglin Air Force Base, 
 Florida, for their participation and efforts in support of the North 
  Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO) Operation Allied Force in the 
                             Balkan region.

Whereas the personnel of the Air Armament Center at Eglin Air Force Base, 
        Florida, developed and provided many of the munitions, technical orders, 
        expertise, and support equipment utilized by NATO during the Operation 
        Allied Force air campaign;
Whereas the 2,000-pound Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) developed at the Air 
        Armament Center was the very first weapon dropped in Operation Allied 
        Force;
Whereas the Air to Ground 130 (AGM 130) standoff missile, developed at the Air 
        Armament Center, enabled the F-15E Strike Eagle aircrews to standoff 
        approximately 40 nautical miles from targets and attack with very high 
        precision; and
Whereas the reliable performance of the JDAM and AGM 130 enabled the combat air 
        crews to complete bombing missions accurately, effectively, and with 
        reduced risk to crews, resulting in no casualties among NATO air 
        personnel, thereby making these munitions the ordinance favored most by 
        combat air crews: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) commends the men and women of Eglin Air Force Base, 
        Florida, for their contributions to the unqualified success of 
        Operation Allied Force;
            (2) recognizes that the efforts of the men and women of the 
        Air Armament Center, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, helped NATO 
        conduct the air war with devastating effect on our adversaries, 
        entirely without American casualties in the air combat 
        operations;
            (3) expresses deep gratitude for the sacrifices made by 
        those men and women and their families in their support of 
        American efforts in Operation Allied Force; and
            (4) commits to maintaining the technological superiority of 
        American air armament as a critical component of our Nation's 
        capability to conduct and prevail in warfare while minimizing 
        casualties.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 21

Subsidiaries of Bremer
Financial CorporationName
of Subsidiaries and State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation as of March 25 2005:

State of Minnesota:

| | Bremer
Business Finance CorporationBremer Financial Services, Inc.Bremer Insurance Agencies, Inc.
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

State of Connecticut:
             
  Bremer Statutory Trust I

State of Delaware:
             
  Bremer Capital Trust I

State of Arizona:

| | Bremer
Life Insurance Company
| | -----------------------------

United States (National Bank Act):

| | Bremer Bank, National Association (Alexandria, MN)
Bremer Bank, National Association (Brainerd, MN)
Bremer Bank, National Association (Fargo, ND)
Bremer Bank, National Association (Grand Forks, ND)
Bremer Bank, National Association (International Falls, MN)
Bremer Bank, National Association (Marshall, MN)
Bremer Bank, National Association (Menomonie, WI)
Bremer Bank, National Association (St. Cloud, MN)
Bremer Bank, National Association (South Saint Paul, MN)
Bremer Bank, National Association (Willmar, MN)
Bremer Trust, National Association
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 43

JOINT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress that the President of the

United States should encourage free and fair elections

and respect for democracy in Peru.

Whereas presidential and congressional elections are scheduled to occur in Peru on April 9, 2000;

Whereas independent election monitors, including the Organization of American States, the National Democratic Institute, and the Carter Center, have expressed grave

doubts about the fairness of the electoral process due to

the Peruvian Government’s control of key official electoral agencies, systematic restrictions on freedom of the

press, manipulation of the judicial processes to stifle

independent reporting on radio, television, and newspaper

outlets, and harassment and intimidation of opposition

politicians, which have greatly limited the ability of opposing candidates to campaign freely; and

Whereas the absence of free and fair elections in Peru would

constitute a major setback for the Peruvian people and

for democracy in the hemisphere, could result in instability in Peru, and could jeopardize United States

antinarcotics objectives in Peru and the region: Now,

therefore, be it
2

SJ 43 ES

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That it is the sense of Congress that the President of the

4 United States should promptly convey to the President of

5 Peru that if the April 9, 2000, elections are not deemed

6 by the international community to have been free and fair,

7 the United States will review and modify as appropriate

8 its political, economic, and military relations with Peru,

9 and will work with other democracies in this hemisphere

10 and elsewhere toward a restoration of democracy in Peru.

Passed the Senate April 7, 2000.

Attest:

Secretary.
106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 43

JOINT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress that the President of the United States should encourage free

and fair elections and respect for democracy inPeru.
**Exhibit 10.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference inRegistration Statements 333-12254 and No. 333-10668 on Form F-3 of Repsol YPF, S.A. of our report dated June 21, 2007, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Repsol YPF, S.A. (the “Parent”) and subsidiaries composing theRepsol YPF Group (the “Group”) (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph stating that the EU-IFRS vary in certain significant respects from accounting principles generally accepted in the UnitedStates of America (“U.S. GAAP”), that the information relating to the nature and effect of such differences is presented in Note 41 to the consolidated financial statements of Repsol YPF, S.A.) and of our report dated June 21, 2007,relating to the management’s report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Repsol YPF, S.A. for the year ended December 31, 2006. 

/s/ DELOITTE, S.L. 

Madrid, Spain 

June 25, 2007
#### Monroe Venable and W. J. Jones, copartners doing business under the firm name and style of Venable and Jones, Appellants, v. Evans Haile, Appellee.

(Supreme Court of Florida,

June 26, 1905.)

Appeal from Circuit Court Alachua County; James 1\. Wills, Judge.

*RoM. R. Davis,*for Appellants.

*Horatio Davis*and *W. 8. Broome,*for Appellee.

This action was brought by the Appellee against the Appellants. There were orders in favor of the complainant and the defendants appeal. The appeal is dismissed on praecipe of counsel for Appellants.