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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7581

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RODNEY HAROLD HENRY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Margaret B. Seymour, District

Judge. (CA-04-1610)

Submitted: September 26, 2006 Decided: September 28, 2006

Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rodney Harold Henry, Appellant Pro Se. Regan Alexandra Pendleton,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Rodney Harold Henry seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and his

motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless

a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will

not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists

would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the

district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive

procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable.

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676,

683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record

and conclude that Henry has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny Henry’s motion for a certificate of

appealability, deny his motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 25, 2014. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, November 25, 2014 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A15D0125. NEVILLE C. TURNBULL v. THE STATE. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 2010CR09954
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13** 
**- 6031** 

WILLIAM S. PARKER , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

DAVID VENABLE ,
Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Dever III , Chief District Judge. ( 5:12

- ct

- 03107

- D )

Submitted : May 23 , 2013 Decided: May 28, 2013

Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

William S. Parker, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
William S. Parker appeals the district court ’ s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (200 6 ) complaint under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915 A(b) (200 6 ). We have reviewed the record and find that
this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal
for the reasons stated by the district court. Parker v.

Venable , No. 5:12

- ct

- 03107

- D (E.D.N.C. Nov. 28, 2012) . We dispense with oral arg ument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# In the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

══════════ No. WR

- 94,542

- 01

══════════

EX PARTE ALLEN MAURICE JOHNSON , Applicant

═══════════════════════════════════════ On Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Cause No. 20508

- B(1) in the 104th District Court F rom Taylor County

═══════════════════════════════════════

Y EARY , J., filed a concurring opinion

. Today the Court grants Applicant post

- conviction habeas relief
based on his claim s of actual innocence and involuntary plea

. I agree that Applicant is entitled to relief. I write separately to briefly express
my disagree ment with the Court’s jurisprudence surrounding actual
innocence

. I agree with the Court that Applicant has satisfied the burdenJOHNSON

– 2

established in Ex parte Elizondo , 947 S.W.2d 202 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996)

. Where my thinking differs is that the Court declares Applicant to be “actually innocent” by virtue of meeting this standard alone. For reasons that I have expressed before, I disagree with the Court’s use of the term “actually innocent” when granting relief under Elizondo ; simply satisfying the Elizondo burden is not enough to prove literal “actual innocence.” See Ex parte Cacy , 543 S.W.3d 802, 803 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (Yeary, J., concurring) (“ The Elizondo standard, on its face, does not really focus on innocence per se . It is, instead, an exceedingly high burden by which an applicant must show that, if newly available evidence were added to the evidentiary mix, no reasonable jury would have found the State ’ s case to have been compelling enough to defeat the systemic presumption of innocence. ”). Still, I am persuaded that Applicant is, in fact, “actually innocent” in an “absolute sense,” as described by my concurring opinion in Ex parte Warfield , 618 S.W.3d 69, 74 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021) (Yeary, J., concurring). On that basis, I respectfully concur

.

FILED: April 19, 2023 DO NOT PUBLISH
**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Thomas Kirchner, certify that: 

  1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of FalconTarget, Inc.;  

  2) Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;  

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

  4) The registrant’s other certifying officers 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)) for the registrant and we 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 registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;  

  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’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 upon such evaluation; and  

  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and  

  5) The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  

  a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’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 registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.  

Date: May 13, 2005 

By:   /s/   Thomas Kirchner 

    Thomas Kirchner

    Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEFEXECUTIVE OFFICER

 

I, Russell C. Taylor, President and Chief Executive Officer of CelluTissue Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.     TheQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended August 25,2005  fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities andExchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.     Theinformation contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  | October 11, 2005                       |   | /s/ Russell C. Taylor |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------|--------|
|   | Russell C. Taylor                      |
|   | President and Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-2994

In Re: TONEY TUCKER ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED,

t/a Lexington Park Chrysler Plymouth Jeep

Eagle,

Debtor.

_________________________

MELDON S. HOLLIS, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

TONEY TUCKER,

Plaintiff,

versus

CHRYSLER CREDIT CORPORATION,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 95-3022

In Re: TONEY TUCKER ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED,

t/a Lexington Park Chrysler Plymouth Jeep

Eagle,

Debtor.

_________________________
2

TONEY TUCKER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

MELDON S. HOLLIS, JR.,

Plaintiff,

versus

CHRYSLER CREDIT CORPORATION,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA95-2442-DKC, BK-94-1-6858-DK)

Submitted: October 22, 1996 Decided: November 15, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Meldon S. Hollis, Jr., HOLLIS & ASSOCIATES, P.A., Randallstown,

Maryland; Elmer Douglass Ellis, Washington, D.C., for Appellants.

John Francis Carlton, WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, Baltimore,

Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

The Appellants appeal from the district court's order finding

them in civil contempt after violating a bankruptcy court order.

Our review of the record discloses that this appeal is without

merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Hollis v. Chrysler Credit Corp., Nos. CA-95-2442-DKC; BK-94-

1-6858-DK (D. Md. Oct. 10 & 25, 1995); Tucker v. Chrysler Credit

Corp., Nos. CA-95-2442-DKC; BK-94-1-6858-DK (D. Md. Oct. 10 & 19,

1995). Appellee's motion to dismiss both appeals is denied. 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
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

In The Supreme Court 

Loida Colonna, Petitioner, 

v. 

Marlboro Park Hospital, Employer, and Gallagher 

Bassett Services, Inc., Carrier, Respondents. 

Appellate Case No. 2013-001599 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS 

Appeal from Florence County 

Michael G. Nettles, Circuit Court Judge 

Opinion No. 27513 

Heard March 17, 2015 – Filed April 8, 2015 

CERTIORARI DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY 

GRANTED 

Stephen Benjamin Samuels, of Samuels Law Firm, LLC, 

of Columbia, for Petitioner. 

Weston Adams, III, of McAngus Goudelock & Courie, 

L.L.C., of Columbia, and Helen Faith Hiser, of McAngus 

Goudelock & Courie, L.L.C., of Mount Pleasant, both 

for Respondents. 
 

PER CURIAM: We granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision in 

Colonna v. Marlboro Park Hospital, 404 S.C. 537, 745 S.E.2d 128 (Ct. App. 

2013). After careful consideration of the Appendix and briefs, the writ of certiorari 

is 

DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED. 

TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., 

concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

CHRISTIAN STAHL,

Appellant

v.

FORMER PRESIDENT JUDGE CHAD F. 

KENNEY (IN HIS OFFICIAL 

ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY); JUDGE 

WILLIAM C. MACKRIDES (IN HIS 

OFFICIAL CAPACITY); JUDGE LINDA A. 

CARTISANO (IN HER OFFICIAL 

CAPACITY); JUDGE BARRY C. DOZOR 

(IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY); 

CUSTODY CONCILIATOR GREGORY J. 

HURCHALLA (INDIVIDUALLY AND IN 

HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY), AND CRAIG 

BRANDEN HUFFMAN, ESQ.,

Appellees

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 28 MAP 2018

Appeal from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court at No. 385 MD 

2017 dated May 2, 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM DECIDED: March 26, 2019

AND NOW, this 26th day of March, 2019, the order of the Commonwealth Court is 

AFFIRMED.
From: "McKeown, David (Columbia) NA" <David.McKeown@hanson.biz>

To: Jeff Telander/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 12/06/2012 01:04 PM

Subject: Hanson Brick - Elgin, TX - January 27, 2011 Stack Test

Mr. Telander:

As we discussed on the phone this afternoon, the stack test report dated January 27, 2011 for Hanson 

Brick’s Elgin, TX facility incorrectly identifies the control device tested as related to Kiln #1.

For corrective purposes, the control device tested is related to Kiln #2 at our Elgin, TX facility.

If you have any questions or need any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

J. David McKeown

Regional Environmental Manager

Hanson Building Products

Hanson Brick East, LLC

5100 Brickyard Road

Columbia, SC 29203

Tel: 803-691-3121

Cell: 803-351-0635

Fax: 803-786-9703

David.McKeown@Hanson.com
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-10557

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

HERIBERTO MORALES, also known as Gilberto Moralez, also known as 

Gibby,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:02-CR-3-15

Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Citing 18 U.S.C. § 3742, Heriberto Morales, federal prisoner # 28118-

180, appeals the 327-month sentence imposed following his 2002 guilty plea 

conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 

more than 500 grams of methamphetamine. Over ten years ago, this court 

dismissed Morales’s original direct appeal as frivolous. United States v. 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 7, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-10557 Document: 00512995713 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/07/2015
No. 14-10557

Morales, 64 F. App’x 417 (5th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we DENY his motion 

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and DISMISS his current appeal as 

frivolous. Morales is WARNED that future frivolous or repetitive filings will 

subject him to sanctions, including dismissal, monetary sanctions, and 

restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in this court or any court subject 

to this court’s jurisdiction.

2

 Case: 14-10557 Document: 00512995713 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/07/2015
*lMyAelcess;. SariVHouduNS* 1174963 WS^lAJV^

VXKOM^ UCg^X- CXj}kJ| (aXJUzML.— notlWrOf^tSAPPEALS

APR OR 2015

HaIgJ.jQ) O^T) jli /? jTpw^cg^.Clerk

to

aW^dl^

ZSOJ^miJ^yvUJt y

CU^^»jg^ (jMMtolG

QMaMM^S^ cWu^/^[| 1^_07_^^^^v^i^^^

O/KJ

3

CM^^Oum^
\Po7

jx^^d^

%lM.

^^^k^A^^MuM gyn 'ijjgbij/t.^(^oMrn^ a^^^

't^^^^^ry^l^ FW- ba^asj^as _____

(XAnJ

juru&ci JjuJjLft

~CU^Wl

/VUxsi^Uu^A cuamM

&Uknii

rtnJL

^UlS MM%k

^ OJmJj J^umajX^^

XT? OZ> thASHT) ah '&u}Juyyil--
Specialty 1400 Independence Avenue, SW.

Crops Room 1536-S, STOP 0240

Program Washington, DC 20250-0240

September 20, 2018 

TECHNICAL AMENDMENT NO. 2

COMMODITY SPECIFICATION

CANNED VEGETABLES – May 2017

The purpose of this technical amendment is to revise and relax requirements and procedures for 

determining washed drain weight of mushrooms in Condensed Cream of Mushroom.

Clarifications and revisions to this commodity specification are shown in blue below.

K. Soups – 24/#1 size can or equivalent size container

Cream of Mushroom Soup, Condensed

Washed drained weight (WDW):

• The WDW of the mushroom pieces will average 8.0 percent or more 

by weight for the lot average with no individual sample falling under

7.0 percent by weight

SCI inspection personnel will be performing a WDW on this product during inspection 

using the following procedure.

Procedure for WDW

1. Rinse deep sided grading tray and a U.S. Standard No.12 sieve with water and invert 

to remove excess water.

2. Place rinsed/drained tray with nested rinsed/drained U.S. Standard No.12 sieve atop 

scale and zero tare.

3. Empty contents of one can condensed soup (carefully removing all mushroom 

pieces) on to screen/tray atop the scale and record net weight of the soup.

4. Place sieve in sink leaving tray atop scale.

5. Gently rinse mushroom pieces and cream sauce in the sieve with water until all visible 

cream sauce is removed.

6. Tilt the sieve at approximately a 20-degree angle and allow to drain for 2 minutes.

7. Place sieve with mushroom pieces (previously zero tared, step 2.) atop scale and 

record weight of mushroom pieces.

8. Calculate percent mushroom pieces by dividing the mushroom WDW weight, by 

weight recorded in step 3.

9. Record to the nearest one percent.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.
Exhibit 31.1








I, Susan B. Sheffield, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of GM Financial Consumer Automobile Receivables Trust 2022-2  (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);





2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;





4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and





5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.





In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:  The Bank of New York Mellon.








By:/s/ Susan B. SheffieldName:Susan B. SheffieldTitle:Executive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerDate:March 3, 2023
### 1 A t t a c h m e n t

O m e r:

T h e N G

- f i r e d e n gi n e u s

e d t o run t h e e m e r

g e n c y b oi l e r r e c i r c u l at io n pum p w

ill b e a C umm i n s G T

A 8 5 5 E ( o r

e qu i v a l e n t ) wi t h a m a x i m um p o

w e r o u t pu t o f 2

5 6 hp @ 1

, 8

0 0 rp m

.

U s i n g e m i ss io n fa c t o r s pr o vi d e d b y t h e ma n uf

a c t ur e r ( ex c e p t f o r S O 2

, w h i c h w as t a ke n fr o m A P -42 S

e c t i o n 3. 2 )

,

a n d 1 0 0 h o ur s o f p l a nn e d n o n

- e m e r

g e n c y o p e r a t i o n a nnu a ll y

( f o r ma i n t e n a n c e a nd t e st i n g )

, s h o r t

- t e rm a nd

a n nu a l e m i ss

io n r at e s a r e ex p e ct e d t o b e:

T h a n k s

, a n d p l e as

e l e t m e k n o w i f y o u n e e d a n y t h i n g e l s

e.

E r ic

F r o m: O me r S h a l e v

[ m a il t o : S h a l e v

. Ome r @ e p am a il

. e p a

. gov ]

S e n t: T h u rsd a y

, A pril 2 6

, 2 0 1 2 1 1 : 1 6 A M 

### R E : C on f e re n c e C a ll f

o r M a rc h 28 a t 10 A M

E r i c A l b r i gh t

t o :

O m er S h a l e v

04 / 26 / 2012 11 : 37 A M

C c :

D a v e B r o w n, S h a n e Y oung

H i d e D e t a i l s

F r o m: E r i c A l b r i gh t <e a l b r i gh t @ e nv i r on c o rp. c o m>

To : O m e r S h a l e v /R 9 / U S E P A / U S @E P A

C c : D a v e B r o w n < D B r o w n@sp i

- i nd. c o m>

, S h a n e Y oung < S Y oung@sp i

- i nd. c o m>

i ma g e001

. g if

U n i ts NO X CO SO 2 PM 10 PM 2 .5 VOC

l b / hr 0

. 782 6

. 11 0

. 00127 0

. 0216 0

. 0216 1

. 23

t ons / yr 0

. 0391 0

. 306 0

. 0000635 0

. 00108 0

. 00108 0

. 0614 

### P a g e 1 o f 16

8 / 2 / 2012 f i l e : / /C: \ D o c u m e n t s a nd S e t ti ngs \ osh a l e v \ Lo c a l S e t t i ngs \ T e m p \ no t e s B AAA 2 5 \

~ w e b7620.h tm
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 The Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Betsy Z. Cohen, 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.
 
 /s/ Betsy Z. CohenBetsy Z. CohenChief Executive OfficerAugust 9, 2011