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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7251

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JULIE RAE ROCK,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Newport News. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (4:16-cr-00084-AWA-RJK-2)

Submitted: April 29, 2024 Decided: August 5, 2024

Before RICHARDSON, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Julie Rae Rock, Appellant Pro Se. Megan Marina Montoya, Assistant United States 

Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7251 Doc: 13 Filed: 08/05/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Julie Rae Rock appeals the district court’s order denying her 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. Upon review, we discern no abuse of 

discretion in the district court’s determination that Rock failed to present an extraordinary 

and compelling basis for relief. See United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 185 (4th Cir. 

2021) (providing standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 

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.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7251 Doc: 13 Filed: 08/05/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
Baseline 2006 Anthropogenic Emissions Modeled for Matagorda County

Emission Sources NOx (tpd) CB05-VOC (tpd)

Elev_Points 2.22 0.65

Low_Points 1.59 1.72

Sum_Points 3.81 2.37

On-Road Mobile 3.16 0.91

Non-Road Mobile 3.44 6.33

Area 6.25 30.16

Total 16.66 39.77
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT
**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**
**EDGAR L. GUIHER, JR.,** 

**Petitioner :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **No. 122 WAL 2016 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from**  **the Order of the Superior Court**

ORDER

P ER CURIAM AND NOW **, this 2nd day of August, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is** DENIED

**.**
Exhibit 12.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Antonio Brufau Niubó, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Repsol YPF, S.A.;

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;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial
statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The companys other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be
designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the companys disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period
covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the audit committee of the
companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the companys
internal control over financial reporting.

Date: June 29, 2009



By:

/s/ Antonio Brufau NiubóName: Antonio Brufau NiubóTitle: Chief Executive Officer
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Social Security Administration

          - 20 CFR Parts 404 and 416
          - [Docket No. SSA 2006-0173]
          - RIN 0960-AG12

# AGENCY:

Social Security Administration.

# ACTION:

Proposed rules; withdrawal.

# SUMMARY:

                        We are withdrawing the proposed rules we published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on December 5, 2005.                    

# DATES:

The proposed rules identified in this document are withdrawn as of March 30, 2012.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Brian Rudick, Social Insurance Specialist, Office of Regulations, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, (410) 965-7102. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213 or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our Internet site, Social Security Online, at                         *http://www.socialsecurity.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Background

                    On December 5, 2005, we published in the                     **Federal Register**                     a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Nonpayment of Benefits to Fugitive Felons and Probation and Parole Violators” (70 FR 72411). We have decided not to pursue final rules based                           ( print page 19154)                        on this NPRM at this time. Therefore, we are withdrawing this NPRM.                

Michael J. Astrue,

Commissioner of Social Security.

[FR Doc. 2012-7684 Filed 3-29-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4191-02-P
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

March 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

129838 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 129838 

 COA: 262003 

Wayne CC: 98-010702-01 

LOUIS THOMPKINS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 20, 2005 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s0320 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

March 27, 2006 

Clerk
**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 Vivid Learning Systems, Inc. (the
        “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2005 as filed with
        the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
        Christopher L. Britton, 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. 
 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/
        Christopher L. Britton
 Name:
        Christopher L. Britton
 Title:
        Chief Executive Officer
 Date:
        February 14, 2006
#### Gary Michael BOWKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alan CHARNES, Director, Department of Revenue, Motor Vehicle Division, State of Colorado, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 83CA0848.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. III.

March 8, 1984.

Robert D. Kelly, Lakewood, for plaintiff-appellant.

Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sol. Gen., James R. Willis, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendants-appel-lees.

STERNBERG, Judge.

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the district court upholding the suspension of his driver’s license pursuant to the implied consent law. Citing *Cantrell v. Weed,*35 Colo.App. 180, 530 P.2d 986 (1974), he contends that he was not properly advised of his rights. We affirm.

The arresting officer testified that he read the advisement form to the plaintiff, and asked him to submit to a blood alcohol test. The plaintiff refused. Then, the officer handed a copy of the form to the plain*1120tiff and again asked if he would submit to a test, and again plaintiff refused.

The hearing officer noted some ambiguity in the officer’s testimony, but found that the second refusal occurred after plaintiff received a copy of the advisement form. The hearing officer concluded that this procedure satisfied the requirements of *Cantrell v. Weed, supra.*The district court held that the hearing officer’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and affirmed.

The law in effect at the time of plaintiff’s arrest required that the arresting officer “orally and by written notice ... inform the person arrested of his rights under the law and the probable consequences of a refusal to submit to such a test.” Section 42-4-1202(3)(b), C.R.S. (repealed by Colo.Sess.Laws 1983, ch. 476 at 1631). In *Cantrell,*we interpreted the statute to mean that “notice in writing must be physically handed or offered to the licensee contemporaneously with or prior to the officer’s request for the sobriety test.”

We hold that the officer cured any possible *Cantrell*defect by handing plaintiff a copy of the advisement and affording him a second opportunity to take the test. Contrary to plaintiff’s assertion, it was not necessary for the officer again to orally advise plaintiff of his rights. Neither do we see any evidence that this procedure confused the plaintiff concerning his right to recant his first refusal to take the test. *See Herren v. Motor Vehicle Division,*39 Colo.App. 146, 565 P.2d 955 (1977).

Order affirmed.

VAN CISE and METZGER, JJ., concur.
#### Joseph NOVOM, Appellant, v. Thelma D. NOVOM, Appellee.

No. 86-1964.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 13, 1987.

Joseph Novom, in pro. per.

Hoffman, Larin & Feinsmith, North Miami Beach, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUBBART and JORGENSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is a pro se appeal brought by the former husband Joseph Novom from a fi*790nal judgment of marriage dissolution. He complains that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the former wife Thelma D. Novom (1) his one-half interest in the marital home, (2) permanent alimony in the amount of $500 per month, (3) $5,700 in temporary alimony arrearages, and (4) attorney’s fees and costs.

We affirm the final judgment under review because, simply stated, there is no record of the final hearing in this cause and the final judgment does not on its face reveal an abuse of discretion in these awards. The parties are in considerable disagreement as to the nature of the evidence adduced below, and were not able to reconstruct the record of the final hearing under Fla.R.App.P. 9.200(a)(3), 9.200(b)(3), after the former husband failed to include a court reporter’s transcript of said hearing. Under these circumstances, we have no authority to upset any of the above-stated awards. *Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee,*377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979); *Glace & Radcliffe, Inc. v. City of Live Oak,*471 So.2d 144, 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); *Pape v. Pape,*444 So.2d 1058, 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); *Wright v. Wright,*431 So.2d 177, 178 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); *Lambert v. Lambert,*340 So.2d 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2611-2612]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-757]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Bankruptcy Compliance 
Project Committee

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Bankruptcy 
Compliance Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy 
Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on 
improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Tuesday, February 14, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy Shepard at 1-(888) 912-1227 or 
(206) 220-6095.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section

[[Page 2612]]

10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Bankruptcy Compliance 
Project Committee will be held Tuesday, February 14, 2012, at 9 a.m. 
Pacific Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make 
oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to 
limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be 
made with Timothy Shepard. For more information please contact Mr. 
Shepard at 1-(888) 912-1227 or (206) 220-6095, or write TAP Office, 915 
2nd Avenue, MS W-406, Seattle, WA 98174, or contact us at the Web site: 
http://www.improveirs.org.
    The agenda will include various IRS Issues.

    Dated: January 11, 2012.
Shawn Collins,
Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 2012-757 Filed 1-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
### NUMBER 13

- 19

- 00 527

- CR



## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

MARIO SIFUENTEZ , A ppellant ,

v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, A ppellee

.

On a ppeal from the 428 th District Court of Hays County, Texas.



## ORDER

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Hinojosa Order Per Curiam

Currently pending before the Court is appellant's pro se motion for access to the

appellate record. Appellant's counsel filed an Anders brief herein and appellant has been

unable to examine the record so that he can file a pro se brief. See Anders v. Calif ornia

,
386 U.S. 738 , 744 (1967)

. Accordingly, we GRANT appellant’s motion and it is hereby
ORDERED that the trial court ensure appellant has the opportunity to fully examine the2

appe llate record on or before the expiration of thirty days from the date of this order , and

it is FURTHER ORDERED the trial court shall notify this Court a s to the date upon which

the appellate record was made available to appellant. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313

(Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant shall have thirty (30) days from the day the appellate

record was first made available to him to file his pr o se brief with this Court. The State

shall have twenty days thereafter to file its response, if any.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the 13 th day of March, 2020.
#### Alvin McCARY v. STATE.

2 Div. 582.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 26, 1988.

Rehearing Denied May 24, 1988.

Stephen M. NeSmith, Montgomery, for appellant.

Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Beth Slate Poe, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

BOWEN, Presiding Judge.

The judgment of the circuit court is reversed and this cause is remanded as man*1136dated by the Alabama Supreme Court in *Ex parte McCary,*528 So.2d 1133 (Ala.1988).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

All Judges concur.
1 

### Sutton, Lisa

From: Suzuki, Debra

Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 6:07 PM

To: Brachtl, Megan; Sutton, Lisa Subject: FW: Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction SIP Call Final Action

Attachments: McCabe letter to air directors final SSM SIP call 05-22-15.pdf

From: Suzuki, Debra

Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 3:06 PM

To: 'scla461@ecy.wa.gov'; Uri Papish; 'sposner@utc.wa.gov'

Cc: Kelly, Kate; Dave Bray; Hunt, Jeff; 'Pritchett, Nancy (ECY)'; Caudill, Anya (ECY); 'Stacey Callaway

(cals461@ECY.WA.GOV)'

Subject: Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction SIP Call Final Action



### Hi Stu, Uri and Stephen. This message is a follo w-up to my phone calls today notifying you about the final action the EPA Administrator signed today to ensure states have in place air pollution rules that apply to sources at all times, includi ng when the source is operating during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM).

This action responds to a Petition for Rulemaking filed by the Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians concerning the treatment of excess emissions at industrial facilities during SSM operations, specifically how those emissions are treated in state im plementation plan (SIP) provisions that the EPA previously approved. Also, as part of this action, EPA has revised and clarified its policy concerning SSM provisions consistent with the Clean Air Act.

The EPA is calling for 36 states, including Washingt on, to make changes to their SIPs, to protect public health and ensure consistency with t he Clean Air Act and the EPA’s current SSM Policy. Ecology, SWCAA and EFSEC will have 18 months to submit revisions of your plan to EPA.

Your revised SIP is due to EPA by November 22, 2016.

As part of our notification about this final SIP call, I have attached to this email a letter from the EPA’s Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and R adiation, Janet McCabe. To inform you of the
details on the final action, includ ing the specific SIP provisions your agency needs to address, we have posted a pre-publication versi on of the action on our website at: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/ur banair/sipstatus/emissions.html.

The EPA will continue to work closely with you to ensur e the SIP revision process is as efficient as possible. If you or your staff have questions, pl ease feel free to contact me at 206-553-0985 or Dave Bray at 206-553-4253.

Thank you,

Debra Suzuki EPA Region 10 Air Planning Unit Manager
#### Brenda P. COLBURN v. Daniel L. COLBURN.

Civ. 5802.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 17, 1987.

Hank Hawkins, Tuscaloosa, for appellant.

Wayne L. Williams, of Williams & Pra-dat, Tuscaloosa, for appellee.

BRADLEY, Presiding Judge.

The dispositive issue for decision by this court is whether Rule 59.1, Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, is applicable in this case.

Brenda B. Colburn and Daniel L. Colburn were divorced by order of the Tuscaloosa County Circuit Court on June 6, 1986. On July 3, 1986 Mr. Colburn filed a motion pursuant to Rule 59 requesting that the court set aside its earlier judgment and grant him a new trial.

Although a hearing was held on Mr. Col-burn’s motion on August 21, 1986, no action was taken by the court until January 5, 1987 when the court amended its previous judgment of June 6, 1986. The court then amended the judgment a second time on January 29, 1987.

Mrs. Colburn appeals, asserting that pursuant to A.R.Civ.P. 59.1 Mr. Colburn’s motion for new trial was overruled by operation of law ninety days after its filing, i.e. the trial court lost jurisdiction over the matter ninety days after July 3, 1986. Consequently, Mrs. Colburn urges that the trial court erred in amending the divorce judgment on January 5, 1987 and again on January 29, 1987.

We agree.

The language of A.R.Civ.P. 59.1 is clear:

> “A failure by the trial court to dispose of any pending post-judgment motion within *267the time permitted hereunder, or any extension thereof, shall constitute a denial of such motion as of the date of the expiration of the period.”

The record supports the conclusion that Mr. Colburn’s Rule 59 motion was overruled by operation of law on October 1, 1986. A.R.Civ.P., Rule 59.1. The Rule 59 motion was filed on July 3, 1986. The ninety day period provided by Rule 59.1 within which a ruling must be made on such motion expired on October 1, 1986. There was no ruling on the motion until January 5, 1987. Consequently, the trial court’s orders of January 5 and 29, 1987 were a nullity because the court was without jurisdiction over the matter after October 1, 1986. *Leathers v. Gover,*447 So.2d 810 (Ala.Civ.App.1984).

Mrs. Colburn appealed to this court contending that the January 5 and 27 orders were void and. we have agreed with her. However, a void judgment will not support an appeal. *Guy v. Southwest Alabama Council on Alcoholism,*475 So.2d 1190 (Ala.Civ.App.1985). Consequently, Mrs. Colburn’s appeal must be dismissed.

Mrs. Colburn’s request for an attorney’s fee is denied.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

HOLMES and INGRAM, JJ., concur.