alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Dziennik Urzędowy C 57I/2020

| | ISSN 1977-1002 |
| --- | --- |
| Dziennik Urzędowy
  Unii Europejskiej | C 057I |
| | |
| Wydanie polskie | Informacje i zawiadomienia | Rocznik 6320 lutego 2020 |

ISSN 1977-1002

Dziennik Urzędowy

Unii Europejskiej

C 057I

Wydanie polskie

Informacje i zawiadomienia

Rocznik 6320 lutego 2020

---

| Spis treści | Strona |
| --- | --- |
| | |
| | |
| | Rada |
| 2020/C 57 I/01 | Decyzja Rady z dnia 17 lutego 2020 r. w sprawie mianowania reprezentującego Niemcy członka zarządu Europejskiego Instytutu ds. Równości Kobiet i Mężczyzn | 1 |

Spis treści

Strona

Rada

2020/C 57 I/01

Decyzja Rady z dnia 17 lutego 2020 r. w sprawie mianowania reprezentującego Niemcy członka zarządu Europejskiego Instytutu ds. Równości Kobiet i Mężczyzn

1

---

| PL | |
| --- | --- |

PL

---

Rada

| 20.2.2020 | PL | Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej | CI 57/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2020

PL

Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej

CI 57/1

---

DECYZJA RADY

z dnia 17 lutego 2020 r.

w sprawie mianowania reprezentującego Niemcy członka zarządu Europejskiego Instytutu ds. Równości Kobiet i Mężczyzn

(2020/C 57 I/01)

RADA UNII EUROPEJSKIEJ,

uwzględniając Traktat o funkcjonowaniu Unii Europejskiej,

uwzględniając rozporządzenie (WE) nr 1922/2006 Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady z ustanawiające Europejski Instytut ds. Równości Kobiet i Mężczyzn (1), w szczególności jego art. 10,

uwzględniając listy kandydatów przedstawionych Radzie przez rządy państw członkowskich,

a także mając na uwadze, co następuje:

| (1) | Decyzją z dnia 27 maja 2019 r. (2) Rada mianowała członków i zastępców członków zarządu Europejskiego Instytutu ds. Równości Kobiet i Mężczyzn na okres od dnia 1 czerwca 2019 r. do dnia 31 maja 2022 r. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Decyzją z dnia 27 maja 2019 r. (2) Rada mianowała członków i zastępców członków zarządu Europejskiego Instytutu ds. Równości Kobiet i Mężczyzn na okres od dnia 1 czerwca 2019 r. do dnia 31 maja 2022 r.

| (2) | Rząd Niemiec przedstawił kandydaturę na jedno nieobsadzone stanowisko członka, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Rząd Niemiec przedstawił kandydaturę na jedno nieobsadzone stanowisko członka,

PRZYJMUJE NINIEJSZĄ DECYZJĘ:

Artykuł 1

Na stanowisko reprezentującego Niemcy członka zarządu Europejskiego Instytutu ds. Równości Kobiet i Mężczyzn na okres pozostający do końca obecnej kadencji, która trwa do dnia 31 maja 2022 r., zostaje niniejszym mianowana następująca osoba:

PRZEDSTAWICIELE RZĄDÓW

| Państwo | Członek | Zastępca członka |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Niemcy | Daniela BEHRENS | |

Państwo

Członek

Zastępca członka

Niemcy

Daniela BEHRENS

Artykuł 2

Niniejsza decyzja wchodzi w życie z dniem jej przyjęcia.

Sporządzono w Brussels, 17 lutego 2020 r.

W imieniu Rady

Przewodniczący

J. BORRELL FONTELLES

---

(1)  Dz.U. L 403 z 30.12.2006, s. 9.

1

(2)  Decyzja Rady z dnia 27 maja 2019 r. w sprawie mianowania członków i zastępców członków zarządu Europejskiego Instytutu ds. Równości Kobiet i Mężczyzn (Dz.U. C 185 z 29.5.2019, s. 1).

2

---
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

128 

KA 10-00386 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, WHALEN, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ANTHONY FUDGE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (CHRISTINE M. COOK OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

ANTHONY FUDGE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE.

WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (JAMES P. MAXWELL

OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County

(John J. Brunetti, A.J.), rendered July 14, 2009. The judgment

convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of assault in the second

degree, unlawful fleeing a police officer in a motor vehicle in the

third degree, resisting arrest, criminal possession of a controlled

substance in the seventh degree and reckless driving. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury

verdict of, inter alia, assault in the second degree (Penal Law §

120.05 [3]), defendant contends that he was denied effective

assistance of counsel. We reject that contention. While defense

counsel need not support a defendant’s pro se motion for the

assignment of new counsel, a defendant is denied the right to counsel

when defense counsel becomes a witness against the defendant by taking

a position adverse to the defendant in the context of such a motion

(see e.g. People v Kirkland, 68 AD3d 1794, 1795; People v Okolo, 35

AD3d 1272, 1283, lv denied 8 NY3d 925). Here, however, the brief

defense of her own performance by defendant’s attorney did not create

a prejudicial conflict (see Okolo, 35 AD3d at 1283; People v Walton,

14 AD3d 419, 420, lv denied 5 NY3d 796). Defendant failed to preserve

for our review his further contention that he was deprived of his

right to a fair trial because the court improperly denigrated defense

counsel in the presence of the jury (see People v Charleston, 56 NY2d

886, 887-888). In any event, we conclude that defendant’s contention

is without merit (cf. People v Lynch, 60 AD3d 1479, 1481, lv denied 12

NY3d 926).
-2- 128 

KA 10-00386 

With respect to defendant’s challenge to the severity of the

sentence, we note that, to the extent defendant contends that he was

improperly penalized for asserting his right to a trial, that

contention is not preserved for our review (see People v Griffin, 48

AD3d 1233, 1236-1237, lv denied 10 NY3d 840; People v Irrizarry, 37

AD3d 1082, 1083, lv denied 8 NY3d 946; People v Green, 35 AD3d 1211,

1211, lv denied 8 NY3d 985) and, in any event, that contention lacks

merit (see Griffin, 48 AD3d at 1236-1237). Moreover, the sentence

imposed is not unduly harsh or severe.

Finally, we have reviewed defendant’s contentions raised in his

pro se supplemental brief and conclude that they are unpreserved for

our review (see CPL 470.05 [2]), and in any event are without merit.

Entered: March 15, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                      15,323,038
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  594,537
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    152,401
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            17,593,425
<PP&E>                                      11,810,870
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              31,913,119
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          531,003
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 24,000,000
<COMMON>                                           831
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,381,285
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                31,913,119
<SALES>                                      4,425,634
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,513,387
<CGS>                                          831,011
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,624,055
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,090,938
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             307,455
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (87,530)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (87,530)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                    (844,250)
<NET-INCOME>                                  (87,530)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.13)
        

</TABLE>
ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION TO FILE TRANSCRIPT 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Case No. DA 24-0144

__________________________________________________________________

DANIEL P. KNUDSEN, ROSE E. 

AYERS, ERIC DENNISON, LANCE 

FRENCH, ERIK FARNHAM and KAILA JACOBSON 

as Class Representatives,

Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.

THE UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA, a unit of the 

Montana University System,

Defendant and Appellee

_______________________________________________________________

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE TRANSCRIPT

_______________________________________________________________

On Appeal from Montana Fourth Judicial District Court 

Missoula County, Cause No. DV-16-977

Honorable Shane A. Vanatta

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Appellants

Nicole L. Siefert

SIEFERT & WAGNER, PLLC

1135 Strand Ave., Suite A

Missoula, MT 59801

Telephone: 406-226-2552

Facsimile: 406-226-2553

nicole@swl.legal

mail@swl.legal

John L. Amsden, Esq.

Justin Stalpes, Esq.

Conner Bottomly, Esq.

Attorneys for Defendant and Appellee

Lucy T. France 

Office of Legal Counsel 

University of Montana 

133 University Hall 

Missoula, MT 59812-3528 

Telephone: 406-243-6786 

Lucy.France@umontana.edu

Maxon R. Davis 

Davis, Hatley, Haffeman & Tighe, 

P.C. P.O. Box 2103 

Great Falls, MT 59403-2103 

07/09/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0144
ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION TO FILE TRANSCRIPT 2

Sydney Best, Esq.

BECK AMSDEN & STALPES, PLLC

610 Professional Drive

Bozeman, MT 59715

Tel: (406) 586-8700

Fax: (406) 586-8960

amsden@becklawyers.com

justin@becklawyers.com

conner@baslawyers.com

sydney@baslawyers.com

info@becklawyers.com

Telephone: 406-761-5243 

max.davis@dhhtlaw.com 

This matter comes before the Court upon the Motion for Extension of Time 

to Transmit the Record submitted by attorneys for Appellants.

ORDER

For good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Court Reporter

Julie Pesanti DeLong is granted additional time to prepare and file the trial 

transcript with the Montana Supreme Court for the subject appeal; the new due

date is August 30, 2024.

Dated and signed electronically below.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 9 2024
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 this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Atlantic Broadband Finance, LLC (the Company) for the
quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Patrick Bratton, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(i) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(ii) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Atlantic Broadband Finance, LLC.
|---- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 9, 2006



/s/ Patrick BrattonPatrick BrattonChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not
being filed as part of this Report.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed October 19, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D22-0772 Lower Tribunal No. 21-805

________________ 

### D.M.T., a juvenile, Appellant,
vs. 

### The State of Florida, Appellee.
An appeal conducted pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Orlando A. Prescott, Judge. D.M.T., a juvenile, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee. Before LINDSEY, GORDO and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 60906

CHARLES DIXON, Individually an d on behalf of the 345 other named plaintiffs; AMELIA WAY, Individually and on behalf of the 345 other named plaintiffs; SHEILA GARY EVANS, Individually and on behalf of the 345 other named plaintiffs; CICILIA JEFFERSON, Individually and on behalf of the 3 45 other named plaintiffs,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants

v. RICHARD A. FREESE; TIM K. GOSS; FREESE & GOSS, P.L.L.C.; JOHN AND JANE DOES, Individually and as Entities,

Defendants

- Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:13

- CV

- 236

Before JONES, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: *
The court has carefully considered this appeal in light of the briefs and record. Having done so, we conclude that there is neither clear error nor any
reversible err or of law in the district court’ s decision that the admission of a

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 14, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-60906 Document: 00513192025 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/14/2015No. 14

- 60906

2 non
- equity member by the unanimous a greement of the LLC’ s equity members occurred substantially in accordance with Texas law. See Tex. Bus. Org. Code §§ 101.001(1) (“company agreement” defined to includ e written or oral agreements), 101.053 (each member must consent to an amendment of the

co mpany agreement, 101.103(c) (a non

- equity member may be admitted on consent of all the company members); 101.102(c) (the company agreement may provide for admission of non

- equity members), and 101.104(b) (rights of a class of members may be stated in the c ompany agreement or at the time the class is established). Accordingly, we AFFIRM, for essentially the reas ons stated by the trial court, its decision to dismiss the case for lack of federal jurisdiction. Case: 14-60906 Document: 00513192025 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/14/2015
#### STATE ex rel. Norris J. FANGUY, Jr. v. Hon. Judge CLAUSE, 15th Judicial District Court, Parish of Lafayette, La., et al.

No. 86-KH-1300.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 1, 1986.

In re Fanguy, Norris J. Jr.; applying for writ of habeas corpus; Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court, No. 85-CR52905.

Transferred to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal for its consideration and action.
#### Acme Fast Freight, Inc. *v.*Heffler, Appellant.

Argued March 21, 1962.

Before Rhodes, P. J., Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ.

*Lionel B.*Gumnit, with him *Weisberg & Gumnit,*for appellant.

*Raymond L. Shapiro,*with him *Wewler, Mulder <$¡ Weisman,*for appellee.

*634April 12, 1962:

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The judgment of the County Court of Philadelphia is affirmed on the opinion of Judge DiNubile, as reported in 26 Pa. D. & C. 2d 575 (1962)'.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

KYRAN JONES

, §

§

Defendant Below, § No. 31 5 , 2017

Appellant, §

§ Court Below: Superior Court

v. § of the State of Delaware

§

STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 1307021270A

§

Plaintiff Below, §

Appellee. §

Submitted: March 7 , 2018

Decided: March 8 , 2018

Before STRINE , Chief Justice; V ALIHURA and TRAYNOR

, Justices

.

O R D E R

This 8 th d ay of March 2018 , it appears to the Court that the judgment of the

Superior Court should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons assigned in the

Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation dated June 6, 2017, adopted by the

Superior Court’s Order dated July 13, 2017

. 1

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

Court is hereby AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice

1 Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation on Defendant’s Motion for Postconviction Relief,

State v. Jones , 2017 WL 2465194, at *1 (Del. Super. June 6, 2017), adopted by State v. Jones , Cr.

ID No. 1307021270A (Del. Super. July 13, 2017).
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 1, 2020

No. 04-19-00689-CR

Julio Jeconiah TORRES,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CR13039

Honorable Stephanie R. Boyd, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is hereby GRANTED. The 

appellant’s brief is deemed timely filed.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 1st day of April, 2020.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz,

Clerk of Court
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Carl Lamb,

 

 Appellant,

v.

The State of Texas,

State.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-17-00154-CR

Appeal from the

34th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20150D01587)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant’s fifth motion for extension of time to file the brief 

until April 3, 2018. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

THE APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Veronica Teresa Lerma, the Appellant’s Attorney,

prepare the Appellant’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before April 3, 2018. 

If Appellant’s brief is not filed with this Court by April 3, 2018, this Court will find it 

necessary to send this case back to the trial court for a hearing as to why Appellant’s brief has not 

been filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 22

nd day of February, 2018.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
#### STATE ex rel. Anderson HAWKINS v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 88-KH-0318.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 26, 1988.

In re Hawkins, Anderson; applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Concordia, 7th Judicial District Court, Div. “B”.

*418Treating this complaint as a motion for change of counsel the motion is granted for the sole purpose of transferring it to the district court for prompt consideration.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL**

**EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with this Quarterly Report of Profire Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the *"Report"*), I, Brenton W. Hatch , 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) 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:  | February 13, 2009 |   | By:    | /s/ Brenton W. Hatch    |   |
|--------|-------------------|--------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   |              |   |   | Brenton W. Hatch        |   |
|   |              |   |   | Chief Executive Officer |   |
|        |                   |        |        |                         |        |  |
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 29, 2015

No. 04-15-00369-CR

IN RE David Jermain HAWKINS

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

On June 18, 2015, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The court has considered 

relator’s petition and is of the opinion that relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, 

the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). The court’s opinion 

will issue at a later date.

It is so ORDERED on June 29, 2015.

_____________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 29 day of June, 2015.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause Nos. 2015CR0290 and 2015CR0291, styled The State of Texas v. David 

Jermain Hawkins, pending in the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Lori I. 

Valenzuela presiding.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 2015

In re: SEAN F. MESCALL , Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

. ( 3:12

- cr - 00215

- RJC

- 1 )

Submitted : December 21, 2021 Decided: December 22, 2021

Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Sean F. Mescall , Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Sean F. Mescall petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed acting on his motion for compassionate release. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court denied Mescall’s motion for compassionate release on September 22, 2021. Accordingly, because the district court has recently ruled on Mescall’s motion, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. 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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6131

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. EVERETT DARNELL ARMSTRONG, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:00-cr-00158-RAJ-1)

Submitted: June 8, 2009 Decided: June 26, 2009

Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Everett Darnell Armstrong, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Everett Darnell Armstrong appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006) motion for a

sentence reduction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Armstrong’s contention that the district court attributed him with only 1.5 kilograms of cocaine base is contradicted by the criminal judgment’s statement that the district court adopted the factual findings of the presentence investigation report. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Armstrong , No. 2:00-cr-00158-RAJ-1 (E.D. Va. Dec. 5, 2008). Further, we deny Armstrong’s motions for preparation of transcripts at the government’s expense and for appointment of counsel. 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